tkf wrote:

mreinman wrote:

tkf wrote:
and guess what happened.. His shooting% went down 1.5%, his 3pt % went down 4%, his offensive rebounds went down 1.5 and total boards went down 3 per game, and over 82 games 246 rebounds.... since his offensive boards are close to 30% of his rebounds that is 74 more posessions his team could have had..
( and I am giving him the benefit of the doubt here, his offensive rebounding ratio's went down almost 7% which makes it even worse.)

The above is loaded with Correlation = Causation attempts that just don't fly.

these are things TS does not count in and to try to pawn off 37% as highly efficient doesn't fly...

This is not TS this is eFg (effective field goal percentage). It is a very simple calc:

eFG% = (FGM + (0.5 x 3PTM)) / FGA

Its adjusted for 2's and 3's whereas FG does not differentiate.

So, to maximize his contribution to his team in a game where the goal is to score more points then their opponents, the player who has the option of shooting 50% from 2 or 38% from 3 should take the 3 point option.

If this is a question then the answer is yes.

The key is to take open shots not contested ones, and, to get the most points out of the shots that you take. You can't get that many shots from 0-3 feet, the defense will not allow it. And from 3-16 his %'s are not good so he is best off either from 0-3 or from 3. He does ok from 16-23 feet but why take long 2's if they are only worth 2 and he only shoots these at 40 percent?

It's just not that black and white.

MDA was right that he wanted Carmelo to sit out there and shoot lots of three's because that is what he is best at (assisted 3's). Love should be used the same way and interestingly, that is the way they were both used in the olympics. Both players have big parts of their mid range games that should be eliminated based on their percentages. Both should continue to shoots lots of threes and it is also far less taxing. Either way, you need to take what the defense will give you and very often they give you what your are least good at based on scouting.

I am a big proponent of either near the basket or beyond the arc for most players but it certainly does not work for everyone especially if they are bad around the basket or from 3.

37% from three is not highly efficient!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MDA was right that he wanted Carmelo to sit out there and shoot lots of three's because that is what he is best at (assisted 3's).

THAT Is not what MDA wanted..

The key is to take open shots not contested ones, and, to get the most points out of the shots that you take. You can't get that many shots from 0-3 feet, the defense will not allow it. And from 3-16 his %'s are not good so he is best off either from 0-3 or from 3. He does ok from 16-23 feet but why take long 2's if they are only worth 2 and he only shoots these at 40 percent?

well then you are making a case for a player who plays a power position yet can't finish near the hoop. that is a huge flaw because he can't shoot that well either from what you are saying.. so that tells me a lot. .when you factor in his usage rate, this is not really a player you should want to build around at all..

but here is something to think about..

the wolves are 15-23 when he shoots more than 6 threes a game.

they are 13-5 when he shoots 5 threes a game

as I said, I think he takes too many threes..

I never said he should not shoot threes, just shoot less..

His goal should be to improve on what he does best...

why is that so hard to understand.. 37% is not highly efficient..

what I want is a guy who can make more shots than he miss or come as close to that as possible..

I want the guys who can actually hit the threes at an efficient rate to take more of them.

just like the spurs the guys who shoot over 40% in threes take the majority of three point shots..

I want love taking more two point shots, which he does well, and i want whoever else on that team who can hit threes at a much higher rate to take more threes than he does..

realize he is taking almost 7 per game!

37.6 is efficient(!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) you just don't really know or understand what that means.

Did I say he can't finish near the rim? Please read what you quoted. I am not sure if you are intentionally not reading what I posted and the distance stats that I presented.

I guess you have proven that if Love shoots 5 3's instead of 6 they would have gotten a top seed. Seriously?

what I want is a guy who can make more shots than he miss or come as close to that as possible..

That is just silly. I would like a player to score a lot of points and the fewest number of shots that he is capable of.

I want love taking more two point shots, which he does well, and i want whoever else on that team who can hit threes at a much higher rate to take more threes than he does..

TKF, you are really way off, I really wish that your buddy bonn can read what you are writing. Anyone who understands stats and cares to spend time on them can see that how severely flawed this comment is and how it shows that you are completely missing the boat. PLEASE FOR HEAVENS SAKE DO SOME RESEARCH BEFORE POSTING AGAIN ABOUT THIS!!!!!!!!!!!

I also see that if someone disagrees with you, you really get disrespectful and snippy even when you are presented with quantifiable stats.

So I will take my queue and move on at this point.

mreinman wrote:

tkf wrote:

mreinman wrote:

tkf wrote:
and guess what happened.. His shooting% went down 1.5%, his 3pt % went down 4%, his offensive rebounds went down 1.5 and total boards went down 3 per game, and over 82 games 246 rebounds.... since his offensive boards are close to 30% of his rebounds that is 74 more posessions his team could have had..
( and I am giving him the benefit of the doubt here, his offensive rebounding ratio's went down almost 7% which makes it even worse.)

The above is loaded with Correlation = Causation attempts that just don't fly.

these are things TS does not count in and to try to pawn off 37% as highly efficient doesn't fly...

This is not TS this is eFg (effective field goal percentage). It is a very simple calc:

eFG% = (FGM + (0.5 x 3PTM)) / FGA

Its adjusted for 2's and 3's whereas FG does not differentiate.

So, to maximize his contribution to his team in a game where the goal is to score more points then their opponents, the player who has the option of shooting 50% from 2 or 38% from 3 should take the 3 point option.

If this is a question then the answer is yes.

The key is to take open shots not contested ones, and, to get the most points out of the shots that you take. You can't get that many shots from 0-3 feet, the defense will not allow it. And from 3-16 his %'s are not good so he is best off either from 0-3 or from 3. He does ok from 16-23 feet but why take long 2's if they are only worth 2 and he only shoots these at 40 percent?

It's just not that black and white.

MDA was right that he wanted Carmelo to sit out there and shoot lots of three's because that is what he is best at (assisted 3's). Love should be used the same way and interestingly, that is the way they were both used in the olympics. Both players have big parts of their mid range games that should be eliminated based on their percentages. Both should continue to shoots lots of threes and it is also far less taxing. Either way, you need to take what the defense will give you and very often they give you what your are least good at based on scouting.

I am a big proponent of either near the basket or beyond the arc for most players but it certainly does not work for everyone especially if they are bad around the basket or from 3.

37% from three is not highly efficient!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MDA was right that he wanted Carmelo to sit out there and shoot lots of three's because that is what he is best at (assisted 3's).

THAT Is not what MDA wanted..

The key is to take open shots not contested ones, and, to get the most points out of the shots that you take. You can't get that many shots from 0-3 feet, the defense will not allow it. And from 3-16 his %'s are not good so he is best off either from 0-3 or from 3. He does ok from 16-23 feet but why take long 2's if they are only worth 2 and he only shoots these at 40 percent?

well then you are making a case for a player who plays a power position yet can't finish near the hoop. that is a huge flaw because he can't shoot that well either from what you are saying.. so that tells me a lot. .when you factor in his usage rate, this is not really a player you should want to build around at all..

but here is something to think about..

the wolves are 15-23 when he shoots more than 6 threes a game.

they are 13-5 when he shoots 5 threes a game

as I said, I think he takes too many threes..

I never said he should not shoot threes, just shoot less..

His goal should be to improve on what he does best...

why is that so hard to understand.. 37% is not highly efficient..

what I want is a guy who can make more shots than he miss or come as close to that as possible..

I want the guys who can actually hit the threes at an efficient rate to take more of them.

just like the spurs the guys who shoot over 40% in threes take the majority of three point shots..

I want love taking more two point shots, which he does well, and i want whoever else on that team who can hit threes at a much higher rate to take more threes than he does..

realize he is taking almost 7 per game!

37.6 is efficient(!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) you just don't really know or understand what that means.

Did I say he can't finish near the rim? Please read what you quoted. I am not sure if you are intentionally not reading what I posted and the distance stats that I presented.

I guess you have proven that if Love shoots 5 3's instead of 6 they would have gotten a top seed. Seriously?

what I want is a guy who can make more shots than he miss or come as close to that as possible..

That is just silly. I would like a player to score a lot of points and the fewest number of shots that he is capable of.

I want love taking more two point shots, which he does well, and i want whoever else on that team who can hit threes at a much higher rate to take more threes than he does..

TKF, you are really way off, I really wish that your buddy bonn can read what you are writing. Anyone who understands stats and cares to spend time on them can see that how severely flawed this comment is and how it shows that you are completely missing the boat. PLEASE FOR HEAVENS SAKE DO SOME RESEARCH BEFORE POSTING AGAIN ABOUT THIS!!!!!!!!!!!

I also see that if someone disagrees with you, you really get disrespectful and snippy even when you are presented with quantifiable stats.

So I will take my queue and move on at this point.

You're entirely right, Mreinman. However, I've spent less time here lately and been enjoying other activities. I've taken up photography and hiking and it's much more fun than Fish and I telling each other how dumb the other one is. :-) My general philosophy is, "if the poster's viewpoint simply reflects a different philosophy on the role of stats or a lack of training/knowledge about stats, then that's a whole bigger issue than I'm ever going to settle here." That issue ultimately traces to how our society views the role of science in decision making, the importance of statistical training in public education, and a whole bunch of other issues. That said, if someone is knowledgeable about the stats here (like you and a few others) or is asking questions out of genuine curiosity (rather than just to attack whatever response I come up with), I'll happily have the discussion.

Bonn1997 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

tkf wrote:

mreinman wrote:

tkf wrote:
and guess what happened.. His shooting% went down 1.5%, his 3pt % went down 4%, his offensive rebounds went down 1.5 and total boards went down 3 per game, and over 82 games 246 rebounds.... since his offensive boards are close to 30% of his rebounds that is 74 more posessions his team could have had..
( and I am giving him the benefit of the doubt here, his offensive rebounding ratio's went down almost 7% which makes it even worse.)

The above is loaded with Correlation = Causation attempts that just don't fly.

these are things TS does not count in and to try to pawn off 37% as highly efficient doesn't fly...

This is not TS this is eFg (effective field goal percentage). It is a very simple calc:

eFG% = (FGM + (0.5 x 3PTM)) / FGA

Its adjusted for 2's and 3's whereas FG does not differentiate.

So, to maximize his contribution to his team in a game where the goal is to score more points then their opponents, the player who has the option of shooting 50% from 2 or 38% from 3 should take the 3 point option.

If this is a question then the answer is yes.

The key is to take open shots not contested ones, and, to get the most points out of the shots that you take. You can't get that many shots from 0-3 feet, the defense will not allow it. And from 3-16 his %'s are not good so he is best off either from 0-3 or from 3. He does ok from 16-23 feet but why take long 2's if they are only worth 2 and he only shoots these at 40 percent?

It's just not that black and white.

MDA was right that he wanted Carmelo to sit out there and shoot lots of three's because that is what he is best at (assisted 3's). Love should be used the same way and interestingly, that is the way they were both used in the olympics. Both players have big parts of their mid range games that should be eliminated based on their percentages. Both should continue to shoots lots of threes and it is also far less taxing. Either way, you need to take what the defense will give you and very often they give you what your are least good at based on scouting.

I am a big proponent of either near the basket or beyond the arc for most players but it certainly does not work for everyone especially if they are bad around the basket or from 3.

37% from three is not highly efficient!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MDA was right that he wanted Carmelo to sit out there and shoot lots of three's because that is what he is best at (assisted 3's).

THAT Is not what MDA wanted..

The key is to take open shots not contested ones, and, to get the most points out of the shots that you take. You can't get that many shots from 0-3 feet, the defense will not allow it. And from 3-16 his %'s are not good so he is best off either from 0-3 or from 3. He does ok from 16-23 feet but why take long 2's if they are only worth 2 and he only shoots these at 40 percent?

well then you are making a case for a player who plays a power position yet can't finish near the hoop. that is a huge flaw because he can't shoot that well either from what you are saying.. so that tells me a lot. .when you factor in his usage rate, this is not really a player you should want to build around at all..

but here is something to think about..

the wolves are 15-23 when he shoots more than 6 threes a game.

they are 13-5 when he shoots 5 threes a game

as I said, I think he takes too many threes..

I never said he should not shoot threes, just shoot less..

His goal should be to improve on what he does best...

why is that so hard to understand.. 37% is not highly efficient..

what I want is a guy who can make more shots than he miss or come as close to that as possible..

I want the guys who can actually hit the threes at an efficient rate to take more of them.

just like the spurs the guys who shoot over 40% in threes take the majority of three point shots..

I want love taking more two point shots, which he does well, and i want whoever else on that team who can hit threes at a much higher rate to take more threes than he does..

realize he is taking almost 7 per game!

37.6 is efficient(!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) you just don't really know or understand what that means.

Did I say he can't finish near the rim? Please read what you quoted. I am not sure if you are intentionally not reading what I posted and the distance stats that I presented.

I guess you have proven that if Love shoots 5 3's instead of 6 they would have gotten a top seed. Seriously?

what I want is a guy who can make more shots than he miss or come as close to that as possible..

That is just silly. I would like a player to score a lot of points and the fewest number of shots that he is capable of.

I want love taking more two point shots, which he does well, and i want whoever else on that team who can hit threes at a much higher rate to take more threes than he does..

TKF, you are really way off, I really wish that your buddy bonn can read what you are writing. Anyone who understands stats and cares to spend time on them can see that how severely flawed this comment is and how it shows that you are completely missing the boat. PLEASE FOR HEAVENS SAKE DO SOME RESEARCH BEFORE POSTING AGAIN ABOUT THIS!!!!!!!!!!!

I also see that if someone disagrees with you, you really get disrespectful and snippy even when you are presented with quantifiable stats.

So I will take my queue and move on at this point.

You're entirely right, Mreinman. However, I've spent less time here lately and been enjoying other activities. I've taken up photography and hiking and it's much more fun than Fish and I telling each other how dumb the other one is. :-) My general philosophy is, "if the poster's viewpoint simply reflects a different philosophy on the role of stats or a lack of training/knowledge about stats, then that's a whole bigger issue than I'm ever going to settle here." That issue ultimately traces to how our society views the role of science in decision making, the importance of statistical training in public education, and a whole bunch of other issues. That said, if someone is knowledgeable about the stats here (like you and a few others) or is asking questions out of genuine curiosity (rather than just to attack whatever response I come up with), I'll happily have the discussion.

well that is smart bonn, life is much better not being in front of a computer screen that is for sure..

But I think what is happening here is that MReinman is trying to convince me that 3 is more than 2.. that is not my issue.. I want him to explain to me how 37% is highly efficient.. a term he used...because I asked him to define what would 47 or even 45% from three be?

he is arguing efficient "scoring" vs efficient "shooting".....

tkf wrote:

mreinman wrote:

tkf wrote:

mreinman wrote:

tkf wrote:
and guess what happened.. His shooting% went down 1.5%, his 3pt % went down 4%, his offensive rebounds went down 1.5 and total boards went down 3 per game, and over 82 games 246 rebounds.... since his offensive boards are close to 30% of his rebounds that is 74 more posessions his team could have had..
( and I am giving him the benefit of the doubt here, his offensive rebounding ratio's went down almost 7% which makes it even worse.)

The above is loaded with Correlation = Causation attempts that just don't fly.

these are things TS does not count in and to try to pawn off 37% as highly efficient doesn't fly...

This is not TS this is eFg (effective field goal percentage). It is a very simple calc:

eFG% = (FGM + (0.5 x 3PTM)) / FGA

Its adjusted for 2's and 3's whereas FG does not differentiate.

So, to maximize his contribution to his team in a game where the goal is to score more points then their opponents, the player who has the option of shooting 50% from 2 or 38% from 3 should take the 3 point option.

If this is a question then the answer is yes.

The key is to take open shots not contested ones, and, to get the most points out of the shots that you take. You can't get that many shots from 0-3 feet, the defense will not allow it. And from 3-16 his %'s are not good so he is best off either from 0-3 or from 3. He does ok from 16-23 feet but why take long 2's if they are only worth 2 and he only shoots these at 40 percent?

It's just not that black and white.

MDA was right that he wanted Carmelo to sit out there and shoot lots of three's because that is what he is best at (assisted 3's). Love should be used the same way and interestingly, that is the way they were both used in the olympics. Both players have big parts of their mid range games that should be eliminated based on their percentages. Both should continue to shoots lots of threes and it is also far less taxing. Either way, you need to take what the defense will give you and very often they give you what your are least good at based on scouting.

I am a big proponent of either near the basket or beyond the arc for most players but it certainly does not work for everyone especially if they are bad around the basket or from 3.

37% from three is not highly efficient!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MDA was right that he wanted Carmelo to sit out there and shoot lots of three's because that is what he is best at (assisted 3's).

THAT Is not what MDA wanted..

The key is to take open shots not contested ones, and, to get the most points out of the shots that you take. You can't get that many shots from 0-3 feet, the defense will not allow it. And from 3-16 his %'s are not good so he is best off either from 0-3 or from 3. He does ok from 16-23 feet but why take long 2's if they are only worth 2 and he only shoots these at 40 percent?

well then you are making a case for a player who plays a power position yet can't finish near the hoop. that is a huge flaw because he can't shoot that well either from what you are saying.. so that tells me a lot. .when you factor in his usage rate, this is not really a player you should want to build around at all..

but here is something to think about..

the wolves are 15-23 when he shoots more than 6 threes a game.

they are 13-5 when he shoots 5 threes a game

as I said, I think he takes too many threes..

I never said he should not shoot threes, just shoot less..

His goal should be to improve on what he does best...

why is that so hard to understand.. 37% is not highly efficient..

what I want is a guy who can make more shots than he miss or come as close to that as possible..

I want the guys who can actually hit the threes at an efficient rate to take more of them.

just like the spurs the guys who shoot over 40% in threes take the majority of three point shots..

I want love taking more two point shots, which he does well, and i want whoever else on that team who can hit threes at a much higher rate to take more threes than he does..

realize he is taking almost 7 per game!

37.6 is efficient(!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) you just don't really know or understand what that means.

Did I say he can't finish near the rim? Please read what you quoted. I am not sure if you are intentionally not reading what I posted and the distance stats that I presented.

I guess you have proven that if Love shoots 5 3's instead of 6 they would have gotten a top seed. Seriously?

what I want is a guy who can make more shots than he miss or come as close to that as possible..

That is just silly. I would like a player to score a lot of points and the fewest number of shots that he is capable of.

I want love taking more two point shots, which he does well, and i want whoever else on that team who can hit threes at a much higher rate to take more threes than he does..

TKF, you are really way off, I really wish that your buddy bonn can read what you are writing. Anyone who understands stats and cares to spend time on them can see that how severely flawed this comment is and how it shows that you are completely missing the boat. PLEASE FOR HEAVENS SAKE DO SOME RESEARCH BEFORE POSTING AGAIN ABOUT THIS!!!!!!!!!!!

I also see that if someone disagrees with you, you really get disrespectful and snippy even when you are presented with quantifiable stats.

So I will take my queue and move on at this point.

No this is simple... 37% is not Highly Efficient as you stated.... I asked you this before.. I am not comparing 3's to 2's.. I am simply weighing apples to apples.... if 37% from three is highly efficient then what is 47% from three? that is all I am asking..

That is just silly. I would like a player to score a lot of points and the fewest number of shots that he is capable of.

and that is the problem with your post.. I want the team to score the most points on fewest amount of shots.. in other words, Kevin love has the highest usage rate on his team I assume. for guys who can get their shots off without any help he probably has the highest shooting percentage from two on that team... considering his usage rate..

therefore I would rather he shoot less threes and shoot more of the shots he is best... and let someone else who shoot a better % from three take more threes.. kevin martin on his team shoots slightly better from three, but no where as good from two.. you could almost argue kevin martin should take more threes when compared to his two point shooting.....

again I just ask.. if 37% is highly efficient, what is 47%?

You are getting caught up in the term "highly efficient".

Lets forget about league ranking for a second and just judge the shot for itself.

Is 55% fg highly efficient?

37.6 percent is highly efficient in comparison with 55% 2's. If you call one highly efficient then they are both the same. Is 55% not highly efficient because you have one dimensional dunkers who shoot near 70%?

If you are judging efficiency against other 3 point shooters, then I would not say its high but its solid. However, that is not the point. The idea is for each player to maximize the percentages on his shots so what Kyle Korver does is irrelevant to Kevin Love. Kyle Korver is off the charts when it comes to overall efficiency and TS. Unfortunately he cannot get off enough open shots to do this at a high usage rate.

So the bottom line is that Love is extremely efficient at a TS of 59.1 and an eFg of 52.4.

So ... what do you think helped his eFg more? His 37.6 3% or his 50.2 2%? Please answer this question.

And once again, I assume that you would rather him remove the 2 point shots that he shoots at a low pct right? So essentially you would only want him to shoot from 0-3 feet? That does not really work since defenses will obviously not allow that.

tkf wrote:

dk7th wrote:

tkf wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

tkf wrote:

mreinman wrote:

tkf wrote:
and guess what happened.. His shooting% went down 1.5%, his 3pt % went down 4%, his offensive rebounds went down 1.5 and total boards went down 3 per game, and over 82 games 246 rebounds.... since his offensive boards are close to 30% of his rebounds that is 74 more posessions his team could have had..
( and I am giving him the benefit of the doubt here, his offensive rebounding ratio's went down almost 7% which makes it even worse.)

The above is loaded with Correlation = Causation attempts that just don't fly.

these are things TS does not count in and to try to pawn off 37% as highly efficient doesn't fly...

This is not TS this is eFg (effective field goal percentage). It is a very simple calc:

eFG% = (FGM + (0.5 x 3PTM)) / FGA

Its adjusted for 2's and 3's whereas FG does not differentiate.

So, to maximize his contribution to his team in a game where the goal is to score more points then their opponents, the player who has the option of shooting 50% from 2 or 38% from 3 should take the 3 point option.

If this is a question then the answer is yes.

The key is to take open shots not contested ones, and, to get the most points out of the shots that you take. You can't get that many shots from 0-3 feet, the defense will not allow it. And from 3-16 his %'s are not good so he is best off either from 0-3 or from 3. He does ok from 16-23 feet but why take long 2's if they are only worth 2 and he only shoots these at 40 percent?

It's just not that black and white.

MDA was right that he wanted Carmelo to sit out there and shoot lots of three's because that is what he is best at (assisted 3's). Love should be used the same way and interestingly, that is the way they were both used in the olympics. Both players have big parts of their mid range games that should be eliminated based on their percentages. Both should continue to shoots lots of threes and it is also far less taxing. Either way, you need to take what the defense will give you and very often they give you what your are least good at based on scouting.

I am a big proponent of either near the basket or beyond the arc for most players but it certainly does not work for everyone especially if they are bad around the basket or from 3.

37% from three is not highly efficient!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

MDA was right that he wanted Carmelo to sit out there and shoot lots of three's because that is what he is best at (assisted 3's).

THAT Is not what MDA wanted..

The key is to take open shots not contested ones, and, to get the most points out of the shots that you take. You can't get that many shots from 0-3 feet, the defense will not allow it. And from 3-16 his %'s are not good so he is best off either from 0-3 or from 3. He does ok from 16-23 feet but why take long 2's if they are only worth 2 and he only shoots these at 40 percent?

well then you are making a case for a player who plays a power position yet can't finish near the hoop. that is a huge flaw because he can't shoot that well either from what you are saying.. so that tells me a lot. .when you factor in his usage rate, this is not really a player you should want to build around at all..

but here is something to think about..

the wolves are 15-23 when he shoots more than 6 threes a game.

they are 13-5 when he shoots 5 threes a game

as I said, I think he takes too many threes..

I never said he should not shoot threes, just shoot less..

His goal should be to improve on what he does best...

why is that so hard to understand.. 37% is not highly efficient..

what I want is a guy who can make more shots than he miss or come as close to that as possible..

I want the guys who can actually hit the threes at an efficient rate to take more of them.

just like the spurs the guys who shoot over 40% in threes take the majority of three point shots..

I want love taking more two point shots, which he does well, and i want whoever else on that team who can hit threes at a much higher rate to take more threes than he does..

realize he is taking almost 7 per game!

37.6 is efficient(!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) you just don't really know or understand what that means.

Did I say he can't finish near the rim? Please read what you quoted. I am not sure if you are intentionally not reading what I posted and the distance stats that I presented.

I guess you have proven that if Love shoots 5 3's instead of 6 they would have gotten a top seed. Seriously?

what I want is a guy who can make more shots than he miss or come as close to that as possible..

That is just silly. I would like a player to score a lot of points and the fewest number of shots that he is capable of.

I want love taking more two point shots, which he does well, and i want whoever else on that team who can hit threes at a much higher rate to take more threes than he does..

TKF, you are really way off, I really wish that your buddy bonn can read what you are writing. Anyone who understands stats and cares to spend time on them can see that how severely flawed this comment is and how it shows that you are completely missing the boat. PLEASE FOR HEAVENS SAKE DO SOME RESEARCH BEFORE POSTING AGAIN ABOUT THIS!!!!!!!!!!!

I also see that if someone disagrees with you, you really get disrespectful and snippy even when you are presented with quantifiable stats.

So I will take my queue and move on at this point.

You're entirely right, Mreinman. However, I've spent less time here lately and been enjoying other activities. I've taken up photography and hiking and it's much more fun than Fish and I telling each other how dumb the other one is. :-) My general philosophy is, "if the poster's viewpoint simply reflects a different philosophy on the role of stats or a lack of training/knowledge about stats, then that's a whole bigger issue than I'm ever going to settle here." That issue ultimately traces to how our society views the role of science in decision making, the importance of statistical training in public education, and a whole bunch of other issues. That said, if someone is knowledgeable about the stats here (like you and a few others) or is asking questions out of genuine curiosity (rather than just to attack whatever response I come up with), I'll happily have the discussion.

well that is smart bonn, life is much better not being in front of a computer screen that is for sure..

But I think what is happening here is that MReinman is trying to convince me that 3 is more than 2.. that is not my issue.. I want him to explain to me how 37% is highly efficient.. a term he used...because I asked him to define what would 47 or even 45% from three be?

he is arguing efficient "scoring" vs efficient "shooting".....

37% is not "highly" efficient but "merely" efficient. anything above 40% from 3 is simply proficient. when i hire guys to work for me i want their bottom line to be working efficiently. it's the guys who achieve proficiency who i promote and reward because it makes my job easier.

that said... there are two things to weigh here, the first being shooting threes in context and the downside of missing threes compared to twos. my contention is missing threes probably leads to easier transition points for the opponent because missed threes tend to produce long rebounds.

however-- the one ingredient missing in this topic is statistics and their relationship to probability theory. in other words, when you have amassed enough statistical information, and have taken into account anomolous dips and spikes, one is able to have greater predictive power by virtue of these overarching trends.

and of course there is the issue of the validity of the various formulae that produce those statistics. are all the variables and their interplay with one another valid and sound?

just my 2 cents.

THANK YOU DK for setting that straight.. while I have some issues with the way people apply advanced stats, I know you often use them, but you tend to apply it in the proper context... and I can appreciate that..

the reason why I am pressing mreiman with that question is because he will take advanced stats and pick and chose when to use them to defend his argument. no consistency at all..

for example... I said that kevin love shoots too many threes and at 37% almost 7 per game didn't seem good.. he then goes on for weeks trying to explain how 3 is more than 2 and that 37% is highly efficient..

ok fast forward

he then goes on to say how bradley beal is shooting a low % from the field.. but ignores his 40% shooting from three.. I mean if 37% is highly efficient, what is 40%? if anything to support his argument, Bradley beal shoots 42% from two and 40% from three.. if anything Beal should almost be doing what kyle korver is doing.. taking as many threes as two point shots.. korver shoots more threes than twos... but he also shoots 47% from both areas... which is good and efficient by itself..

so I am confused as to why he didn't champion beal's super efficieny? according to him that is..

with that said, I wish I had saved this article. This guy comes up with another way to weigh FG%, one he felt better than EFG and TS.. it was interesting..

one argument he had with EFG% is that you can achieve a FG% greater than 100% he used JJ reddick going 9-10 from the field one game and 5-6 from three, it gave him a EFG of over 100...

he compared that to Derrick rose saying I won't come back until I am 110% ..LOL..

to this guy, it just defied logic... how can you be better than perfect... haha

You are so funny.

"DK my darling, you use them advanced stats so beautifully" geeez

I never said that beal shot badly from three, I said he shot badly overall!

Beal shot poorly in the regular season, his TS was an awful 50! Geez your comprehension really is awful.

Beal shot super great from 3 so of course he would have been better off shooting only 3's. How dumb is that? Does that work? A player takes the shots that they are given by defenses.

Korver was super efficient and Beal was not END OF STORY!!!!

KLove was extremely efficient and Beal was not END OF STORY!!!

Now explain again what you are finding to be inconsistent? I can try to explain again in a 20th way.

If you understood the basics of TS and eFg then you would not keep misinterpreting everything.

tkf wrote:

martin wrote:TKF, if someone just shoots 2's, what do you think is a good clip to shoot that would be fairly efficient?

I think it's common to say 50%?

martin 50% is good, above that is even better.... what I think is being missed here martin are a lot of the unknowns, or data that we are just not capable of computing.. what happens when you miss?

so the more shots you take if if you are only hitting 37% the more you miss... what happens with those misses?

If you are referring to DK's long rebounds assertion, I have posted this before.

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

Vmart wrote:Love will end up in Boston in a trade. Gut feeling says the Boston has the necessary assets to trade for Love.

I could see that, though I think the Lakers/GS also will have a shot; GS via trade, LA via FA.

If OKC loses in 4/5 games, I think it's time for them to see what Westbrook can get them.

OKC - Love & Ibaka could play the 4/5, finally giving them a down low scorer (yes he shoots 3's too!!!!!!) and allow Reggie Jackson to take the point.

Minny - cushions blow w/ Love departure by adding guy you can build around and move to his more natural SG and pairing him w/ a still very young Rubio.

dk7th wrote:

martin wrote:TKF, if someone just shoots 2's, what do you think is a good clip to shoot that would be fairly efficient?

I think it's common to say 50%?

i will volunteer my impressions:

45-46% is mediocre and not efficient.
you want a player to be closer to 48-51% in order to be classified as efficient.
anything above 52% in my opinion is proficient.

Yet you state that 37.6 which is an effective field goal percentage of 57% is not "proficient" but just "merely efficient"?

Does that make any sense?