BRIGGS wrote:

OldFan wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

OldFan wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

Paladin55 wrote:So nobody has any comments about his 3/13 followup game with 2 TO and 1 A in 30 minutes?

Just wondering.

I think anyone who watched the game saw the light the other night. How many games has Gallinari shot 34%? I mean for all of the hoopla Gallo is avg 13.8 and barely 43% shooting in 30 minutes. Should we consider Gallo very inconsistent?--I mean he is older than Bayless and Randolph with much more experience and PT

6 times this year he's been 34% or below. But 60% of his shots are 3's so it's not a fair comparison. Gallo's effective shooting percentage is .568. Bayless is a respectable .510 but that's well below Gallo.

I'm not saying we should not or should not have gone after Bayless but throwing out Gallo's shooting percentage of 43% without analyzing the composition of the shots is misleading.

you can use efg to a point but you're not calculating opposing scoring opportunities off of the misses for the other team. Yes 2/5 is 50% efg but how many points did the opposing team score off of the 3 misses? Its not calculated in--a misleading stat.

No stat covers everything. But I'm going to venture to say that ignoring 3 pt shooting altogether is far more misleading then not factoring in long rebounds. I don't think you'll find many coaches who wouldn't want a 43% three pt shooter even if the misses lead to long rebounds. Do you really think it's fairer to compare two pt shooting percentage to three pt shooting percentage with NO adjustment?

Absolutely any team stupid enough to shoot a high % of 3 pointers in the NBA will lose much more than they win. A 3 point shot is a niche part of the game. You cant compare 3 pt shooting and 2 pt shooting--think about it.

I don't think a 3 pt shot is worth 1.5 times as much as a two point shot because you'll never be as consistent with three pt shots. We agree there.

But I do think you have to account for it. You can weigh it less the 50% more but not discount it all together.

As far as a team shooting a high percentage of three pt shots. I personally wish they never introduced the three point line. I liked it when if a team forced another to take a long range jumper it was good defense.

But it is part of the game and teams that take a lot of three point shots are bad because they have low percentage shooters taking those shots. Having one or two high percentage three point shooters taking those shots is a good thing and most of the successful teams have had them.

kam77 wrote:A made three is psychologically more devastating than a made two. Adjust for that.

LOL. that's rich. and true.

kam77 wrote:A made three is psychologically more devastating than a made two. Adjust for that.

How about a slam dunk that revs up the team and the crowd? It's a silly conversation--a three point shot is a niche part of the game--do the math.

orangeblobman wrote:warriors last season - 20% of shots were threes
hawks - 25%
spurs - 25%
knicks - 31%

slam dunks don't rev me up more than threes because they're only 2 points, with a three point shot, you get three points.

If it was such a great play than 80%+ of the plays would be three's not 2s. It's a niche part of the game. The game is based and will always be based on a 2 point shot/foul shooting. The three is an added offensive option--look what happens when we shoot too many--we lose--we usually get drubbed. No player should take more than 20% of their shots from the 3 point line unless they are a niche specialist. No great player in the history of the nba had a high % of 3 point shots.

orangeblobman wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

orangeblobman wrote:warriors last season - 20% of shots were threes
hawks - 25%
spurs - 25%
knicks - 31%

slam dunks don't rev me up more than threes because they're only 2 points, with a three point shot, you get three points.

If it was such a great play than 80%+ of the plays would be three's not 2s. It's a niche part of the game. The game is based and will always be based on a 2 point shot/foul shooting. The three is an added offensive option--look what happens when we shoot too many--we lose--we usually get drubbed. No player should take more than 20% of their shots from the 3 point line unless they are a niche specialist. No great player in the history of the nba had a high % of 3 point shots.

What?! Get the heck out of here. If you have 4 awesome shooters on the floor at all times, then you can use that so good! The problem is that MDA doesn't have the required awesome shooters, YET. Reggie Miller was a great player in NBA history, Dale Ellis, Stojakovic, BIRD!! Bird could shoot threes, couldn't he?!

You don't get it--don't comprehend what I'm saying. L Bird took 19k shots in his career 1700 of which were 3 point shots

Now the math--that's right 11% of his shots were 3s.

BRIGGS wrote:

orangeblobman wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

orangeblobman wrote:warriors last season - 20% of shots were threes
hawks - 25%
spurs - 25%
knicks - 31%

slam dunks don't rev me up more than threes because they're only 2 points, with a three point shot, you get three points.

If it was such a great play than 80%+ of the plays would be three's not 2s. It's a niche part of the game. The game is based and will always be based on a 2 point shot/foul shooting. The three is an added offensive option--look what happens when we shoot too many--we lose--we usually get drubbed. No player should take more than 20% of their shots from the 3 point line unless they are a niche specialist. No great player in the history of the nba had a high % of 3 point shots.

What?! Get the heck out of here. If you have 4 awesome shooters on the floor at all times, then you can use that so good! The problem is that MDA doesn't have the required awesome shooters, YET. Reggie Miller was a great player in NBA history, Dale Ellis, Stojakovic, BIRD!! Bird could shoot threes, couldn't he?!

You don't get it--don't comprehend what I'm saying. L Bird took 19k shots in his career 1700 of which were 3 point shots

Now the math--that's right 11% of his shots were 3s.

orangeblog was happy getting a C in algerbra class.

BRIGGS wrote:

Paladin55 wrote:So nobody has any comments about his 3/13 followup game with 2 TO and 1 A in 30 minutes?

Just wondering.

I think anyone who watched the game saw the light the other night. How many games has Gallinari shot 34%? I mean for all of the hoopla Gallo is avg 13.8 and barely 43% shooting in 30 minutes. Should we consider Gallo very inconsistent?--I mean he is older than Bayless and Randolph with much more experience and PT

oh please briggs.. 43% shooting is good avg. 14ppg, and why mention ages of guys who are months within one another.. Are you telling me that the 10 month difference between gallo and randolph is the reason why he is playing better? in 10 months is that mental midget randolph going to be that much smarter.. or the 12 days that gallo has on bayless makes that much difference in their games? LOL briggs.. you keep acting as if gallo is 5 years older.. he is 10 months older than randolph and 12 days older than bayless.. in other words.. they are all the same damn age..

BRIGGS wrote:

orangeblobman wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

orangeblobman wrote:warriors last season - 20% of shots were threes
hawks - 25%
spurs - 25%
knicks - 31%

slam dunks don't rev me up more than threes because they're only 2 points, with a three point shot, you get three points.

If it was such a great play than 80%+ of the plays would be three's not 2s. It's a niche part of the game. The game is based and will always be based on a 2 point shot/foul shooting. The three is an added offensive option--look what happens when we shoot too many--we lose--we usually get drubbed. No player should take more than 20% of their shots from the 3 point line unless they are a niche specialist. No great player in the history of the nba had a high % of 3 point shots.

What?! Get the heck out of here. If you have 4 awesome shooters on the floor at all times, then you can use that so good! The problem is that MDA doesn't have the required awesome shooters, YET. Reggie Miller was a great player in NBA history, Dale Ellis, Stojakovic, BIRD!! Bird could shoot threes, couldn't he?!

You don't get it--don't comprehend what I'm saying. L Bird took 19k shots in his career 1700 of which were 3 point shots

Now the math--that's right 11% of his shots were 3s.

briggs, i think you need to re-check your numbers.. Bird took 17,334 FG's of which 1700 were threes.. I don't think you add the threes into the field goal attempts as a three is considered a field goal attempt.. anyway, he is still around the 11% range, but if you look at reggie miller, he attempted 17,400 FG's in which 6486 were from three.. roughly 37%.. wouldn't you say that reggie miller is a HOF player, and great?

paul pierce, another great player.. 28% of shots are from downtown.