mreinman wrote:

fishmike wrote:

mreinman wrote:

fishmike wrote:

mreinman wrote:also, nobody can argue that the 3 is far more prevalent in the game today vs 10 years ago. Of course that is because every team is now run by stat geeks its hard to take for older school fans but that is part of the game. At some point every fan is going to feel like the game is changing too much for their liking.

thats actually my take with many of your posts. Sports is measured by wins and losses, not by what is visually pleasing, which is why I find it interesting that you call several players who did little besides win (Iverson and Kobe) come to mind and continually call them "disgusting."

Shooting more 3s in not the only "trend" that has happened in the NBA.

The trend I see with the NBA isnt analytic based, its talent based. The trend is how do you tap a very large talent pool of smaller players. Thats the trend. Thats what Mike DAntoni really showed is possible. That it makes more sense to play a 6'7 guy at power forward or center if he's better basketball player than a guy who is 6'10 if you play the right style to maximize his skills...

Everyone likes to play basketball. I am 6'3 and work in NYC. I can walk 20 blocks in rush hour, past 5k people on a given day and see one, maybe two guys who are taller than me. There was a pool of untapped talent. Eliminating hand checking added additional freedom for players who are very fast but perhaps not as tall.

The trend isnt to shoot the 3 more. The trend is smaller faster players. The 3 is the equalizer, but nothing has changed there, only the understanding that these guys have value.

The trend isnt shooting more 3s. Its getting more players that can shoot 3s.

The teams that hit the most shots still win, and that is not hard to see as ALL the top 10 in FG% were playoff teams, and ALL the bottom 8 were lottery bound.

the team that hit the most shots don't necessarily win. Its the team that scores the most points and maximizes the ROI on the shots that they take. Also, count FT's which FG does not.

I never said that 3's and 3 attempts are the only things that changed. I have talked many times about all the other changes to the game.

I don't think that Iverson and Kobe were always disgusting players. Overrated, yes. Disgusting, kobe the last few years has played way passed disgusting.

ahhh... they do, they really do. Top 10 teams all playoff teams, bottom 8 all lottery. I mean pick any year, sort by FG% and its pretty much a top to bottom of what teams had good years and which didnt.

Sure, you can make up for it in other areas... rebounding, hitting 3s, going to the line and TOs are all factors as well, but in a game where you score points by putting the ball in the basket yea... FG% is the key stat.

last season:

FG:

Portland - 17th
Okc - 18th
Houston - 20th
Chicago - 22nd

you really can't use any of these stats by themselves. And, I am sure that nobody is really too heavily on FG. Well ... maybe the lakers.

Bonn1997 wrote:Stephen Curry has a near perfect shot chart - just high value shots. That's mostly 3s and shots near the basket, although he has one mid range spot that he's good at. He doesn't have a high volume from there, though. I'm guessing he only shoots those when he's wide open. Fivethirtyeight.com has an article on the Warriors only shooting high value shots (which in most cases means only near the basket and 3s).
Curry's shot chart:

GS also has the best collection of 3 point shooters in the NBA.

Bonn... Im not arguing the value of the 3 or being good at it. Im not even saying the long 2 is a good shot. If these guy's were pitchers the scouting report would surely say the long 2 is their weakest pitch. Does that mean you dont ever throw it? Does that mean every one is bad? No to both. Its a very important shot for several players, establishes spacing and yes.. is the least "valuable" shot. Not all long 2's are bad and how do you coach a good jumper shooter out of that shot? The best shot is the open one. Stats based on volume are not practical to dictate every situation.

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Stephen Curry has a near perfect shot chart - just high value shots. That's mostly 3s and shots near the basket, although he has one mid range spot that he's good at. He doesn't have a high volume from there, though. I'm guessing he only shoots those when he's wide open. Fivethirtyeight.com has an article on the Warriors only shooting high value shots (which in most cases means only near the basket and 3s).
Curry's shot chart:

and Michael Jordan took very few 3's, TONS of long 2's and midrange jumpers and was the best player ever. Point?

GS also has the best collection of 3 point shooters in the NBA.

Bonn... Im not arguing the value of the 3 or being good at it. Im not even saying the long 2 is a good shot. If these guy's were pitchers the scouting report would surely say the long 2 is their weakest pitch. Does that mean you dont ever throw it? Does that mean every one is bad? No to both. Its a very important shot for several players, establishes spacing and yes.. is the least "valuable" shot. Not all long 2's are bad and how do you coach a good jumper shooter out of that shot? The best shot is the open one. Stats based on volume are not practical to dictate every situation.

GustavBahler wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Stephen Curry has a near perfect shot chart - just high value shots. That's mostly 3s and shots near the basket, although he has one mid range spot that he's good at. He doesn't have a high volume from there, though. I'm guessing he only shoots those when he's wide open. Fivethirtyeight.com has an article on the Warriors only shooting high value shots (which in most cases means only near the basket and 3s). Either they figured out on their own to dramatically cut down the midrange shots or (more likely) the analytics department they have played a role in this.
Curry's shot chart:

The blue shaded area is interesting. Didn't know there was an area like that in his shot chart.

Bonn1997 wrote:Stephen Curry has a near perfect shot chart - just high value shots. That's mostly 3s and shots near the basket, although he has one mid range spot that he's good at. He doesn't have a high volume from there, though. I'm guessing he only shoots those when he's wide open. Fivethirtyeight.com has an article on the Warriors only shooting high value shots (which in most cases means only near the basket and 3s). Either they figured out on their own to dramatically cut down the midrange shots or (more likely) the analytics department they have played a role in this.
Curry's shot chart:

what a pretty shot chart I think that I will hang this on my wall.

Another thing, players like Wade who just can't shoot the 3 will of course take more long 2's than others and he was still an efficient player. Same for Tony Parker. Jordan was also not a good 3 point shooter. If you can get to 32-33% then its a very high valued shot.

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Stephen Curry has a near perfect shot chart - just high value shots. That's mostly 3s and shots near the basket, although he has one mid range spot that he's good at. He doesn't have a high volume from there, though. I'm guessing he only shoots those when he's wide open. Fivethirtyeight.com has an article on the Warriors only shooting high value shots (which in most cases means only near the basket and 3s).
Curry's shot chart:

and Michael Jordan took very few 3's, TONS of long 2's and midrange jumpers and was the best player ever. Point?

GS also has the best collection of 3 point shooters in the NBA.

Bonn... Im not arguing the value of the 3 or being good at it. Im not even saying the long 2 is a good shot. If these guy's were pitchers the scouting report would surely say the long 2 is their weakest pitch. Does that mean you dont ever throw it? Does that mean every one is bad? No to both. Its a very important shot for several players, establishes spacing and yes.. is the least "valuable" shot. Not all long 2's are bad and how do you coach a good jumper shooter out of that shot? The best shot is the open one. Stats based on volume are not practical to dictate every situation.

No one said you never shoot mid range shots. Jordan played in a different era - one where both he and his opponents didn't have this info. from the metrics experts. So everyone was taking more of these low percentage shots, and the team that was the best at them still had an advantage.
Do you think Curry should be shooting more mid range in order to establish spacing? If your theory is right shouldn't this lack of spacing be hurting his team?

Just to add a little more:
1) Obviously when the shot clock is about to expire, you take whatever you can get even if it's mid-range.
2) I haven't seen mid-range shooting percentages listed separately for players depending on whether they're open or closely guarded. (Maybe teams have this info., though.) I suspect a decent number of players get good value out of open mid-range shots.

Curry is a terrible example. Its like me using Shaq as an example of why bigs shouldnt shoot 3s. Curry is the best shooter in possibly the history of the game. Can we use a better example?

And your #2 point was really the premiss of this thread. That you can end up with a good amount of longs 2's and in the context of the game they are good shots. However that goes out the window when folks make blanket statements like "we take too many long 2s" or "the long 2 isnt a good shot"

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Stephen Curry has a near perfect shot chart - just high value shots. That's mostly 3s and shots near the basket, although he has one mid range spot that he's good at. He doesn't have a high volume from there, though. I'm guessing he only shoots those when he's wide open. Fivethirtyeight.com has an article on the Warriors only shooting high value shots (which in most cases means only near the basket and 3s).
Curry's shot chart:

and Michael Jordan took very few 3's, TONS of long 2's and midrange jumpers and was the best player ever. Point?

GS also has the best collection of 3 point shooters in the NBA.

Bonn... Im not arguing the value of the 3 or being good at it. Im not even saying the long 2 is a good shot. If these guy's were pitchers the scouting report would surely say the long 2 is their weakest pitch. Does that mean you dont ever throw it? Does that mean every one is bad? No to both. Its a very important shot for several players, establishes spacing and yes.. is the least "valuable" shot. Not all long 2's are bad and how do you coach a good jumper shooter out of that shot? The best shot is the open one. Stats based on volume are not practical to dictate every situation.

No one said you never shoot mid range shots. Jordan played in a different era - one where both he and his opponents didn't have this info. from the metrics experts. So everyone was taking more of these low percentage shots, and the team that was the best at them still had an advantage.
Do you think Curry should be shooting more mid range in order to establish spacing? If your theory is right shouldn't this lack of spacing be hurting his team?

Just to add a little more:
1) Obviously when the shot clock is about to expire, you take whatever you can get even if it's mid-range.
2) I haven't seen mid-range shooting percentages listed separately for players depending on whether they're open or closely guarded. (Maybe teams have this info., though.) I suspect a decent number of players get good value out of open mid-range shots.

Curry is a terrible example. Its like me using Shaq as an example of why bigs shouldnt shoot 3s. Curry is the best shooter in possibly the history of the game. Can we use a better example?

And your #2 point was really the premiss of this thread. That you can end up with a good amount of longs 2's and in the context of the game they are good shots. However that goes out the window when folks make blanket statements like "we take too many long 2s" or "the long 2 isnt a good shot"

I don't see a connection to Shaq. Curry clearly could shoot from anywhere on the court but chooses not to shoot the mid-range shots. It wasn't really a choice with Shaq. The whole Warriors' team has a pretty good shot chart. It's not as dramatic as Curry's but you can see by all the mid-range shot white space that they have a strong preference for close shots and 3s. Near the basket and 3 point range has almost no white space.

Thats not the point. Look at my original post. I asked a question. These shot charts have really no point in that question.

mreinman wrote:again, mid range shots are ok if you can shoot them at a high percentage where it is considered efficient. Dirk, Wade, CP3, ... there are players who just shoot it well but most players don't shoot it at an efficient enough level.