tkf wrote:

dk7th wrote:

mreinman wrote:38.6 percent (Love) from 3 is extremely efficient. As Bonn stated, its the equivalent of 57 percent from 2.

41 percent for Melo is off the charts. That is also what coach K did with him in the olympics. Melo took very few contested 2's in the olympics.

And it is proven if the other guys are contributing, we can just look at their efficiency and their overall wins they produce.

I have been following basketball closely since the mid 80's but I have only been studying advanced metrics for a couple of years. They are fascinating and I never stop trying to learn and read more about it.

i wonder how the metrics account for long rebounds off of bricked threes that lead to the opponent getting a relatively easy fast break conversion? i have seen this phenomenon too many times when watching the knicks.

i would think there would have to be a penalty for missing threes at 62% just as a player is rewarded for making 38% of them.

is that a valid question/point?

yea, one other thing is that Ts factors in FT's right.. well he is not getting to the line shooting threes right? so if he took more two point shots where he shoots 50%, isn't there a chance he draws more fouls? I just think it makes more sense to take the most shots you shoot the higher percentage at..

I just think operating closer to the basket opens up more avenues to facilitate than from behind the arc....

I just think 38% from three is just mediocre.... the same thing holds true for carmelo.. shooting 44% isn't necessarily bad but if you are taking over 20 shots like carmelo is, then it is not good.

love is taking 6 threes a game.. that is a lot....

advanced metrics take all this into effect. That is why long 2's are so detrimental. You should read and research the questions you have there is a lot of great articles and stats.

MDA who you like put a very high emphasis and value on 3's. That is why his teams took so many of them. Like Houston, it was either near the basket on beyond the arc. Which ever is the open and best look - you need to take what the defense gives you.

Now, turning down an open inside look for a 3 is bad basketball.

Love taking 10 threes is not an issue if he can continue to hit them at a highly efficient rate.

shooting 20 shots a game is not an issue if its at an efficient TS%. Shooting bad shots are never acceptable so the goal is to remove shots that are not efficient like long 2's.

Now using Iverson's career as an example (not to derail - its just a good example of extreme inefficiency), shooting 22 shots at a TS of 52 (42.5 FG) is horrible and inefficient offensive basketball. However, back then, teams and fans did not know better. Today, that would be unacceptable and judged accordingly.

mreinman wrote:

tkf wrote:

dk7th wrote:

mreinman wrote:38.6 percent (Love) from 3 is extremely efficient. As Bonn stated, its the equivalent of 57 percent from 2.

41 percent for Melo is off the charts. That is also what coach K did with him in the olympics. Melo took very few contested 2's in the olympics.

And it is proven if the other guys are contributing, we can just look at their efficiency and their overall wins they produce.

I have been following basketball closely since the mid 80's but I have only been studying advanced metrics for a couple of years. They are fascinating and I never stop trying to learn and read more about it.

i wonder how the metrics account for long rebounds off of bricked threes that lead to the opponent getting a relatively easy fast break conversion? i have seen this phenomenon too many times when watching the knicks.

i would think there would have to be a penalty for missing threes at 62% just as a player is rewarded for making 38% of them.

is that a valid question/point?

yea, one other thing is that Ts factors in FT's right.. well he is not getting to the line shooting threes right? so if he took more two point shots where he shoots 50%, isn't there a chance he draws more fouls? I just think it makes more sense to take the most shots you shoot the higher percentage at..

I just think operating closer to the basket opens up more avenues to facilitate than from behind the arc....

I just think 38% from three is just mediocre.... the same thing holds true for carmelo.. shooting 44% isn't necessarily bad but if you are taking over 20 shots like carmelo is, then it is not good.

love is taking 6 threes a game.. that is a lot....

advanced metrics take all this into effect. That is why long 2's are so detrimental. You should read and research the questions you have there is a lot of great articles and stats.

MDA who you like put a very high emphasis and value on 3's. That is why his teams took so many of them. Like Houston, it was either near the basket on beyond the arc. Which ever is the open and best look - you need to take what the defense gives you.

Now, turning down an open inside look for a 3 is bad basketball.

Love taking 10 threes is not an issue if he can continue to hit them at a highly efficient rate.

shooting 20 shots a game is not an issue if its at an efficient TS%. Shooting bad shots are never acceptable so the goal is to remove shots that are not efficient like long 2's.

Now using Iverson's career as an example (not to derail - its just a good example of extreme inefficiency), shooting 22 shots at a TS of 52 (42.5 FG) is horrible and inefficient offensive basketball. However, back then, teams and fans did not know better. Today, that would be unacceptable and judged accordingly.

But 38% is not highly efficient...

as far as iverson, everyone knew he was efficient, but again, he brought a level of energy and all around play that people loved... in the end. Iversons impact was good enough to outweigh his flaws.. his finals appearance is just an example of that...

tkf wrote:

mreinman wrote:

tkf wrote:

dk7th wrote:

mreinman wrote:38.6 percent (Love) from 3 is extremely efficient. As Bonn stated, its the equivalent of 57 percent from 2.

41 percent for Melo is off the charts. That is also what coach K did with him in the olympics. Melo took very few contested 2's in the olympics.

And it is proven if the other guys are contributing, we can just look at their efficiency and their overall wins they produce.

I have been following basketball closely since the mid 80's but I have only been studying advanced metrics for a couple of years. They are fascinating and I never stop trying to learn and read more about it.

i wonder how the metrics account for long rebounds off of bricked threes that lead to the opponent getting a relatively easy fast break conversion? i have seen this phenomenon too many times when watching the knicks.

i would think there would have to be a penalty for missing threes at 62% just as a player is rewarded for making 38% of them.

is that a valid question/point?

yea, one other thing is that Ts factors in FT's right.. well he is not getting to the line shooting threes right? so if he took more two point shots where he shoots 50%, isn't there a chance he draws more fouls? I just think it makes more sense to take the most shots you shoot the higher percentage at..

I just think operating closer to the basket opens up more avenues to facilitate than from behind the arc....

I just think 38% from three is just mediocre.... the same thing holds true for carmelo.. shooting 44% isn't necessarily bad but if you are taking over 20 shots like carmelo is, then it is not good.

love is taking 6 threes a game.. that is a lot....

advanced metrics take all this into effect. That is why long 2's are so detrimental. You should read and research the questions you have there is a lot of great articles and stats.

MDA who you like put a very high emphasis and value on 3's. That is why his teams took so many of them. Like Houston, it was either near the basket on beyond the arc. Which ever is the open and best look - you need to take what the defense gives you.

Now, turning down an open inside look for a 3 is bad basketball.

Love taking 10 threes is not an issue if he can continue to hit them at a highly efficient rate.

shooting 20 shots a game is not an issue if its at an efficient TS%. Shooting bad shots are never acceptable so the goal is to remove shots that are not efficient like long 2's.

Now using Iverson's career as an example (not to derail - its just a good example of extreme inefficiency), shooting 22 shots at a TS of 52 (42.5 FG) is horrible and inefficient offensive basketball. However, back then, teams and fans did not know better. Today, that would be unacceptable and judged accordingly.

But 38% is not highly efficient...

as far as iverson, everyone knew he was efficient, but again, he brought a level of energy and all around play that people loved... in the end. Iversons impact was good enough to outweigh his flaws.. his finals appearance is just an example of that...

The league average for 3's is 35%, so yes 38% is efficient. As far as your point that you are always better off shooting the higher percentage shot, that is simply inaccurate when comparing 2's and 3's. One shot is worth 50% more, so if you can hit threes at a greater rate than 2/3 of the percentage at which you shoot 2's, then the 3 is more valuable point-wise. However, obviously if a player only took 3's and actually tried to consistently attempt 20 3's a game as you joked, the defense would lock him down behind the line a la Novak and his 3pt FG% would plummet, making it less effective...

tkf wrote:

mreinman wrote:

tkf wrote:

dk7th wrote:

mreinman wrote:38.6 percent (Love) from 3 is extremely efficient. As Bonn stated, its the equivalent of 57 percent from 2.

41 percent for Melo is off the charts. That is also what coach K did with him in the olympics. Melo took very few contested 2's in the olympics.

And it is proven if the other guys are contributing, we can just look at their efficiency and their overall wins they produce.

I have been following basketball closely since the mid 80's but I have only been studying advanced metrics for a couple of years. They are fascinating and I never stop trying to learn and read more about it.

i wonder how the metrics account for long rebounds off of bricked threes that lead to the opponent getting a relatively easy fast break conversion? i have seen this phenomenon too many times when watching the knicks.

i would think there would have to be a penalty for missing threes at 62% just as a player is rewarded for making 38% of them.

is that a valid question/point?

yea, one other thing is that Ts factors in FT's right.. well he is not getting to the line shooting threes right? so if he took more two point shots where he shoots 50%, isn't there a chance he draws more fouls? I just think it makes more sense to take the most shots you shoot the higher percentage at..

I just think operating closer to the basket opens up more avenues to facilitate than from behind the arc....

I just think 38% from three is just mediocre.... the same thing holds true for carmelo.. shooting 44% isn't necessarily bad but if you are taking over 20 shots like carmelo is, then it is not good.

love is taking 6 threes a game.. that is a lot....

advanced metrics take all this into effect. That is why long 2's are so detrimental. You should read and research the questions you have there is a lot of great articles and stats.

MDA who you like put a very high emphasis and value on 3's. That is why his teams took so many of them. Like Houston, it was either near the basket on beyond the arc. Which ever is the open and best look - you need to take what the defense gives you.

Now, turning down an open inside look for a 3 is bad basketball.

Love taking 10 threes is not an issue if he can continue to hit them at a highly efficient rate.

shooting 20 shots a game is not an issue if its at an efficient TS%. Shooting bad shots are never acceptable so the goal is to remove shots that are not efficient like long 2's.

Now using Iverson's career as an example (not to derail - its just a good example of extreme inefficiency), shooting 22 shots at a TS of 52 (42.5 FG) is horrible and inefficient offensive basketball. However, back then, teams and fans did not know better. Today, that would be unacceptable and judged accordingly.

But 38% is not highly efficient...

as far as iverson, everyone knew he was efficient, but again, he brought a level of energy and all around play that people loved... in the end. Iversons impact was good enough to outweigh his flaws.. his finals appearance is just an example of that...

I think that you meand inefficient, right?

The trip to the finals does not prove that at all. Is a common error/flawed argument that people made (but they are not making anymore).

Once again, this article discusses this specifically.

http://wagesofwins.com/2013/01/15/yeh-points-allen-iverson-what-was-the-question/

Bonn1997 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

dk7th wrote:

mreinman wrote:38.6 percent (Love) from 3 is extremely efficient. As Bonn stated, its the equivalent of 57 percent from 2.

41 percent for Melo is off the charts. That is also what coach K did with him in the olympics. Melo took very few contested 2's in the olympics.

And it is proven if the other guys are contributing, we can just look at their efficiency and their overall wins they produce.

I have been following basketball closely since the mid 80's but I have only been studying advanced metrics for a couple of years. They are fascinating and I never stop trying to learn and read more about it.

i wonder how the metrics account for long rebounds off of bricked threes that lead to the opponent getting a relatively easy fast break conversion? i have seen this phenomenon too many times when watching the knicks.

i would think there would have to be a penalty for missing threes at 62% just as a player is rewarded for making 38% of them.

is that a valid question/point?

Yes that is. Misses that lead to long rebounds and fast break points should be penalized. However, one can also make an argument that some long misses lead to more offensive rebounds.

It is certainly a something to think about.

Yeah, my guess is those 3s lead to a disproportionate # of offensive rebounds too

I posted this earlier.

This is a really good breakdown and tool for shots that lead to offensive rebounds.

http://courtvisionanalytics.com/where-do-rebounds-go/

mreinman wrote:

mreinman wrote:

tkf wrote:

mreinman wrote:

tkf wrote:

dk7th wrote:

mreinman wrote:38.6 percent (Love) from 3 is extremely efficient. As Bonn stated, its the equivalent of 57 percent from 2.

41 percent for Melo is off the charts. That is also what coach K did with him in the olympics. Melo took very few contested 2's in the olympics.

And it is proven if the other guys are contributing, we can just look at their efficiency and their overall wins they produce.

I have been following basketball closely since the mid 80's but I have only been studying advanced metrics for a couple of years. They are fascinating and I never stop trying to learn and read more about it.

i wonder how the metrics account for long rebounds off of bricked threes that lead to the opponent getting a relatively easy fast break conversion? i have seen this phenomenon too many times when watching the knicks.

i would think there would have to be a penalty for missing threes at 62% just as a player is rewarded for making 38% of them.

is that a valid question/point?

yea, one other thing is that Ts factors in FT's right.. well he is not getting to the line shooting threes right? so if he took more two point shots where he shoots 50%, isn't there a chance he draws more fouls? I just think it makes more sense to take the most shots you shoot the higher percentage at..

I just think operating closer to the basket opens up more avenues to facilitate than from behind the arc....

I just think 38% from three is just mediocre.... the same thing holds true for carmelo.. shooting 44% isn't necessarily bad but if you are taking over 20 shots like carmelo is, then it is not good.

love is taking 6 threes a game.. that is a lot....

advanced metrics take all this into effect. That is why long 2's are so detrimental. You should read and research the questions you have there is a lot of great articles and stats.

MDA who you like put a very high emphasis and value on 3's. That is why his teams took so many of them. Like Houston, it was either near the basket on beyond the arc. Which ever is the open and best look - you need to take what the defense gives you.

Now, turning down an open inside look for a 3 is bad basketball.

Love taking 10 threes is not an issue if he can continue to hit them at a highly efficient rate.

shooting 20 shots a game is not an issue if its at an efficient TS%. Shooting bad shots are never acceptable so the goal is to remove shots that are not efficient like long 2's.

Now using Iverson's career as an example (not to derail - its just a good example of extreme inefficiency), shooting 22 shots at a TS of 52 (42.5 FG) is horrible and inefficient offensive basketball. However, back then, teams and fans did not know better. Today, that would be unacceptable and judged accordingly.

But 38% is not highly efficient...

No. 38% (from 3) is super efficient.

I don't understand. The math that Bonn gave you the actual conversion number as it pertains to 2's (59.5%). That is incredible! As he rightly stated, if they can do this as a team they would go 82 and 0.

You can't look at these numbers from a simplistic FG%. That is not looking at the correct picture/stat that translates into points and wins.

I did not see a response for this. Would like to continue this conversation since I thought that we were getting somewhere.

You are as likely to see a response to this, as you will in the Cav's shame thread to your point about TS%. It possibly might appear mixed into a 6 to 7 post-flame of the thread, trying to explain how you are a troll without actually calling you names, and how you need to watch more (or some) NBA basketball.

Bonn1997 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

mreinman wrote:

tkf wrote:

mreinman wrote:

tkf wrote:

dk7th wrote:

mreinman wrote:38.6 percent (Love) from 3 is extremely efficient. As Bonn stated, its the equivalent of 57 percent from 2.

41 percent for Melo is off the charts. That is also what coach K did with him in the olympics. Melo took very few contested 2's in the olympics.

And it is proven if the other guys are contributing, we can just look at their efficiency and their overall wins they produce.

I have been following basketball closely since the mid 80's but I have only been studying advanced metrics for a couple of years. They are fascinating and I never stop trying to learn and read more about it.

i wonder how the metrics account for long rebounds off of bricked threes that lead to the opponent getting a relatively easy fast break conversion? i have seen this phenomenon too many times when watching the knicks.

i would think there would have to be a penalty for missing threes at 62% just as a player is rewarded for making 38% of them.

is that a valid question/point?

yea, one other thing is that Ts factors in FT's right.. well he is not getting to the line shooting threes right? so if he took more two point shots where he shoots 50%, isn't there a chance he draws more fouls? I just think it makes more sense to take the most shots you shoot the higher percentage at..

I just think operating closer to the basket opens up more avenues to facilitate than from behind the arc....

I just think 38% from three is just mediocre.... the same thing holds true for carmelo.. shooting 44% isn't necessarily bad but if you are taking over 20 shots like carmelo is, then it is not good.

love is taking 6 threes a game.. that is a lot....

advanced metrics take all this into effect. That is why long 2's are so detrimental. You should read and research the questions you have there is a lot of great articles and stats.

MDA who you like put a very high emphasis and value on 3's. That is why his teams took so many of them. Like Houston, it was either near the basket on beyond the arc. Which ever is the open and best look - you need to take what the defense gives you.

Now, turning down an open inside look for a 3 is bad basketball.

Love taking 10 threes is not an issue if he can continue to hit them at a highly efficient rate.

shooting 20 shots a game is not an issue if its at an efficient TS%. Shooting bad shots are never acceptable so the goal is to remove shots that are not efficient like long 2's.

Now using Iverson's career as an example (not to derail - its just a good example of extreme inefficiency), shooting 22 shots at a TS of 52 (42.5 FG) is horrible and inefficient offensive basketball. However, back then, teams and fans did not know better. Today, that would be unacceptable and judged accordingly.

But 38% is not highly efficient...

No. 38% (from 3) is super efficient.

I don't understand. The math that Bonn gave you the actual conversion number as it pertains to 2's (59.5%). That is incredible! As he rightly stated, if they can do this as a team they would go 82 and 0.

You can't look at these numbers from a simplistic FG%. That is not looking at the correct picture/stat that translates into points and wins.

I did not see a response for this. Would like to continue this conversation since I thought that we were getting somewhere.

I think he responded sufficiently when he said he did the math and conceded that 38% was OK.

See right above:

"But 38% is not highly efficient..."

I do not think that he conceded anything.

Bonn1997 wrote:Well he had a post a little later where he ran the #s and then said "I stand corrected"

That was much earlier, but then he reverted to repeat the same idiotic claim.

Follow the trail and you will see what I mean.

Did you read the whole thread? Kind of telling.

yellowboy90 wrote:22 pages for this merry-go-round.

well ... we actually got somewhere. We brought the horse to the water and actually got him to drink a little. For a few hours, he was actually trying to learn.

Until he had a relapse. But we need to support him and help him get back up.

It feels like when I was helping my mother learn how to use a PC. Really painful but we got there even though she will never be that good at it.

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

mreinman wrote:

tkf wrote:

mreinman wrote:

tkf wrote:

dk7th wrote:

mreinman wrote:38.6 percent (Love) from 3 is extremely efficient. As Bonn stated, its the equivalent of 57 percent from 2.

41 percent for Melo is off the charts. That is also what coach K did with him in the olympics. Melo took very few contested 2's in the olympics.

And it is proven if the other guys are contributing, we can just look at their efficiency and their overall wins they produce.

I have been following basketball closely since the mid 80's but I have only been studying advanced metrics for a couple of years. They are fascinating and I never stop trying to learn and read more about it.

i wonder how the metrics account for long rebounds off of bricked threes that lead to the opponent getting a relatively easy fast break conversion? i have seen this phenomenon too many times when watching the knicks.

i would think there would have to be a penalty for missing threes at 62% just as a player is rewarded for making 38% of them.

is that a valid question/point?

yea, one other thing is that Ts factors in FT's right.. well he is not getting to the line shooting threes right? so if he took more two point shots where he shoots 50%, isn't there a chance he draws more fouls? I just think it makes more sense to take the most shots you shoot the higher percentage at..

I just think operating closer to the basket opens up more avenues to facilitate than from behind the arc....

I just think 38% from three is just mediocre.... the same thing holds true for carmelo.. shooting 44% isn't necessarily bad but if you are taking over 20 shots like carmelo is, then it is not good.

love is taking 6 threes a game.. that is a lot....

advanced metrics take all this into effect. That is why long 2's are so detrimental. You should read and research the questions you have there is a lot of great articles and stats.

MDA who you like put a very high emphasis and value on 3's. That is why his teams took so many of them. Like Houston, it was either near the basket on beyond the arc. Which ever is the open and best look - you need to take what the defense gives you.

Now, turning down an open inside look for a 3 is bad basketball.

Love taking 10 threes is not an issue if he can continue to hit them at a highly efficient rate.

shooting 20 shots a game is not an issue if its at an efficient TS%. Shooting bad shots are never acceptable so the goal is to remove shots that are not efficient like long 2's.

Now using Iverson's career as an example (not to derail - its just a good example of extreme inefficiency), shooting 22 shots at a TS of 52 (42.5 FG) is horrible and inefficient offensive basketball. However, back then, teams and fans did not know better. Today, that would be unacceptable and judged accordingly.

But 38% is not highly efficient...

No. 38% (from 3) is super efficient.

I don't understand. The math that Bonn gave you the actual conversion number as it pertains to 2's (59.5%). That is incredible! As he rightly stated, if they can do this as a team they would go 82 and 0.

You can't look at these numbers from a simplistic FG%. That is not looking at the correct picture/stat that translates into points and wins.

I did not see a response for this. Would like to continue this conversation since I thought that we were getting somewhere.

I think he responded sufficiently when he said he did the math and conceded that 38% was OK.

See right above:

"But 38% is not highly efficient..."

I do not think that he conceded anything.

ok and highly efficient are two comepletely different things.. if 38% is highly efficient, then what is 48% which korver shoots?

you do realize that 38% doesn't even put you in the top 30 among 3 point shooters.. how is that highly efficient? how?

mreinman wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:22 pages for this merry-go-round.

well ... we actually got somewhere. We brought the horse to the water and actually got him to drink a little. For a few hours, he was actually trying to learn.

Until he had a relapse. But we need to support him and help him get back up.

It feels like when I was helping my mother learn how to use a PC. Really painful but we got there even though she will never be that good at it.

dude you have been more wrong on this site.. you should just stop posting.. btw I would love for you to finish telling me how well spree did with the wolves in 1993.. lol