Bonn1997 wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:http://www.thenbageek.com/articles?tag=Wins+Produced
Here is a little bit:

And here I have to take a minute to address the myth of shot creation. Let's set the record straight on one thing: shot creation, in an absolute sense, simply does not exist. If you put a group of high schoolers on an NBA court, they may indeed have trouble ever getting a shot off vs. an NBA defense that was trying. But historically in the NBA, every team, no matter how bad, has been able to "create" plenty of field goal attempts. Ask the 1990-91 Denver Nuggets, who managed to lead the NBA in FGA and FGM (by a fairly wide margin) with one of its worst offenses and certainly the worst overall team. Consider also that every team, no matter how bad, always seems to have guys who score in double figures and get off lots of shots. Last year the Bobcats were arguably the worst team in NBA history, yet they had 5 guys who were above average in FGA/48 minutes). Somehow, NBA defenses were not shutting them down so much that they couldn't get shots off.

Therefore, arguments that revolve around statements like "Well, someone has to shoot" are generally not worthwhile in discussing "shot creation". Arguments that a player has value because he can "create his own shot" are not helpful, because almost any NBA wing player can do that. If this skill were rare, we would see big variablities in the FGA of teams from year to year. If this skill were rare, would the Bobcats have 5 guys that could do it? The 11/12 Bobcats?

I think 'shot creation' is poorly defined in the quoted text. When I say, 'Carmelo Anthony is great at creating his own shot' I'm not suggesting that he pulled the FGA out of thin air. What I'm saying is that on a one-on-one situation, he's better at getting a high percentage shot off relative to his peers. Kobe, Wade, Durant, Pierce, etc. fit this bill. Steve Novak, while an excellent shooter, is not in this class of 'creating his own shot'. I don't know a single person that has ever defined 'shot creation' as '"create" plenty of field goal attempts'.

If you're now changing the topic to creating high percentage shots, then yes that's important. Career TS% is the best indicator of the quality of your shots though. Obviously the frequency of your shots is important - getting lots of high quality shots is better than only a few. Someone who gets a lot of them will have higher win shares and wins produced though. The point is, you've now simply changed the topic to something that the sabermetrics do not overlook.

define shot creation for me then, because what I'm saying it's not defined properly in the quoted text

Bonn1997 wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:http://www.thenbageek.com/articles?tag=Wins+Produced
Here is a little bit:

And here I have to take a minute to address the myth of shot creation. Let's set the record straight on one thing: shot creation, in an absolute sense, simply does not exist. If you put a group of high schoolers on an NBA court, they may indeed have trouble ever getting a shot off vs. an NBA defense that was trying. But historically in the NBA, every team, no matter how bad, has been able to "create" plenty of field goal attempts. Ask the 1990-91 Denver Nuggets, who managed to lead the NBA in FGA and FGM (by a fairly wide margin) with one of its worst offenses and certainly the worst overall team. Consider also that every team, no matter how bad, always seems to have guys who score in double figures and get off lots of shots. Last year the Bobcats were arguably the worst team in NBA history, yet they had 5 guys who were above average in FGA/48 minutes). Somehow, NBA defenses were not shutting them down so much that they couldn't get shots off.

Therefore, arguments that revolve around statements like "Well, someone has to shoot" are generally not worthwhile in discussing "shot creation". Arguments that a player has value because he can "create his own shot" are not helpful, because almost any NBA wing player can do that. If this skill were rare, we would see big variablities in the FGA of teams from year to year. If this skill were rare, would the Bobcats have 5 guys that could do it? The 11/12 Bobcats?

I think 'shot creation' is poorly defined in the quoted text. When I say, 'Carmelo Anthony is great at creating his own shot' I'm not suggesting that he pulled the FGA out of thin air. What I'm saying is that on a one-on-one situation, he's better at getting a high percentage shot off relative to his peers. Kobe, Wade, Durant, Pierce, etc. fit this bill. Steve Novak, while an excellent shooter, is not in this class of 'creating his own shot'. I don't know a single person that has ever defined 'shot creation' as '"create" plenty of field goal attempts'.

If you're now changing the topic to creating high percentage shots, then yes that's important. Career TS% is the best indicator of the quality of your shots though. Obviously the frequency of your shots is important - getting lots of high quality shots is better than only a few. Someone who gets a lot of them will have higher win shares and wins produced though. The point is, you've now simply changed the topic to something that the sabermetrics do not overlook.

well ... back to my point

is there a sabermetric that tracks the high percentages of shots / makes taken in clutch situations and tie that into WS and WP? Maybe it does, I am just asking.

I think that would/should be weighted higher as far as producing wins.

SupremeCommander wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:http://www.thenbageek.com/articles?tag=Wins+Produced
Here is a little bit:

And here I have to take a minute to address the myth of shot creation. Let's set the record straight on one thing: shot creation, in an absolute sense, simply does not exist. If you put a group of high schoolers on an NBA court, they may indeed have trouble ever getting a shot off vs. an NBA defense that was trying. But historically in the NBA, every team, no matter how bad, has been able to "create" plenty of field goal attempts. Ask the 1990-91 Denver Nuggets, who managed to lead the NBA in FGA and FGM (by a fairly wide margin) with one of its worst offenses and certainly the worst overall team. Consider also that every team, no matter how bad, always seems to have guys who score in double figures and get off lots of shots. Last year the Bobcats were arguably the worst team in NBA history, yet they had 5 guys who were above average in FGA/48 minutes). Somehow, NBA defenses were not shutting them down so much that they couldn't get shots off.

Therefore, arguments that revolve around statements like "Well, someone has to shoot" are generally not worthwhile in discussing "shot creation". Arguments that a player has value because he can "create his own shot" are not helpful, because almost any NBA wing player can do that. If this skill were rare, we would see big variablities in the FGA of teams from year to year. If this skill were rare, would the Bobcats have 5 guys that could do it? The 11/12 Bobcats?

I think 'shot creation' is poorly defined in the quoted text. When I say, 'Carmelo Anthony is great at creating his own shot' I'm not suggesting that he pulled the FGA out of thin air. What I'm saying is that on a one-on-one situation, he's better at getting a high percentage shot off relative to his peers. Kobe, Wade, Durant, Pierce, etc. fit this bill. Steve Novak, while an excellent shooter, is not in this class of 'creating his own shot'. I don't know a single person that has ever defined 'shot creation' as '"create" plenty of field goal attempts'.

If you're now changing the topic to creating high percentage shots, then yes that's important. Career TS% is the best indicator of the quality of your shots though. Obviously the frequency of your shots is important - getting lots of high quality shots is better than only a few. Someone who gets a lot of them will have higher win shares and wins produced though. The point is, you've now simply changed the topic to something that the sabermetrics do not overlook.

define shot creation for me then, because what I'm saying it's not defined properly in the quoted text

mrKnickShot wrote:

IronWillGiroud wrote:Creating your own shot is just having the balls to get a shot up. That's the difference between a guy that will shoot 41 times and not give a **** if he makes 18, it's because he's the guy that's taking it all on his shoulders. Most guys in NBA can create some sort of shot, they just don't have the balls, that's why Melo is a Superstar

that is far from true!

Felton has the balls, he is just bad at creating a high pct shot - oh ... and he also can't shoot

Novak can't create a shot at all

Kidd at this point really can't create his own shot

Chandler can't do anything other than dunk off a pass - zero creation skills

JR can create his own shot though his decision making in regards to the shot he chooses is often flawed

Good passes create shots too, you know? Helping the spacing on the floor creates shots too. People seem to have a misconception that the guy who does the most dribbling is the one creating the shots.

Bonn1997 wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:http://www.thenbageek.com/articles?tag=Wins+Produced
Here is a little bit:

And here I have to take a minute to address the myth of shot creation. Let's set the record straight on one thing: shot creation, in an absolute sense, simply does not exist. If you put a group of high schoolers on an NBA court, they may indeed have trouble ever getting a shot off vs. an NBA defense that was trying. But historically in the NBA, every team, no matter how bad, has been able to "create" plenty of field goal attempts. Ask the 1990-91 Denver Nuggets, who managed to lead the NBA in FGA and FGM (by a fairly wide margin) with one of its worst offenses and certainly the worst overall team. Consider also that every team, no matter how bad, always seems to have guys who score in double figures and get off lots of shots. Last year the Bobcats were arguably the worst team in NBA history, yet they had 5 guys who were above average in FGA/48 minutes). Somehow, NBA defenses were not shutting them down so much that they couldn't get shots off.

Therefore, arguments that revolve around statements like "Well, someone has to shoot" are generally not worthwhile in discussing "shot creation". Arguments that a player has value because he can "create his own shot" are not helpful, because almost any NBA wing player can do that. If this skill were rare, we would see big variablities in the FGA of teams from year to year. If this skill were rare, would the Bobcats have 5 guys that could do it? The 11/12 Bobcats?

I think 'shot creation' is poorly defined in the quoted text. When I say, 'Carmelo Anthony is great at creating his own shot' I'm not suggesting that he pulled the FGA out of thin air. What I'm saying is that on a one-on-one situation, he's better at getting a high percentage shot off relative to his peers. Kobe, Wade, Durant, Pierce, etc. fit this bill. Steve Novak, while an excellent shooter, is not in this class of 'creating his own shot'. I don't know a single person that has ever defined 'shot creation' as '"create" plenty of field goal attempts'.

If you're now changing the topic to creating high percentage shots, then yes that's important. Career TS% is the best indicator of the quality of your shots though. Obviously the frequency of your shots is important - getting lots of high quality shots is better than only a few. Someone who gets a lot of them will have higher win shares and wins produced though. The point is, you've now simply changed the topic to something that the sabermetrics do not overlook.

well ... back to my point

is there a sabermetric that tracks the high percentages of shots / makes taken in clutch situations and tie that into WS and WP? Maybe it does, I am just asking.

I think that would/should be weighted higher as far as producing wins.

Sabermetricians tend not to do that because the points count the same regardless of the time they are scored at. You could certainly define clutch and then calculate people's TS%s in the clutch. You could even calculate their Wins Produced or Win Shares during clutch points like they final six minutes of close games. I think several cognitive biases can help to explain why people overvalue whatever a player contributes close to the end of the game and devalue what occurs earlier though.

that is where I think this thinking is flawed.

Are you saying that Jordan hitting a jumper over Byron Russell with seconds to play to win a ring is not far more important to WP's than a 2nd quarter bucket in a seesaw game?

mrKnickShot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:http://www.thenbageek.com/articles?tag=Wins+Produced
Here is a little bit:

And here I have to take a minute to address the myth of shot creation. Let's set the record straight on one thing: shot creation, in an absolute sense, simply does not exist. If you put a group of high schoolers on an NBA court, they may indeed have trouble ever getting a shot off vs. an NBA defense that was trying. But historically in the NBA, every team, no matter how bad, has been able to "create" plenty of field goal attempts. Ask the 1990-91 Denver Nuggets, who managed to lead the NBA in FGA and FGM (by a fairly wide margin) with one of its worst offenses and certainly the worst overall team. Consider also that every team, no matter how bad, always seems to have guys who score in double figures and get off lots of shots. Last year the Bobcats were arguably the worst team in NBA history, yet they had 5 guys who were above average in FGA/48 minutes). Somehow, NBA defenses were not shutting them down so much that they couldn't get shots off.

Therefore, arguments that revolve around statements like "Well, someone has to shoot" are generally not worthwhile in discussing "shot creation". Arguments that a player has value because he can "create his own shot" are not helpful, because almost any NBA wing player can do that. If this skill were rare, we would see big variablities in the FGA of teams from year to year. If this skill were rare, would the Bobcats have 5 guys that could do it? The 11/12 Bobcats?

I think 'shot creation' is poorly defined in the quoted text. When I say, 'Carmelo Anthony is great at creating his own shot' I'm not suggesting that he pulled the FGA out of thin air. What I'm saying is that on a one-on-one situation, he's better at getting a high percentage shot off relative to his peers. Kobe, Wade, Durant, Pierce, etc. fit this bill. Steve Novak, while an excellent shooter, is not in this class of 'creating his own shot'. I don't know a single person that has ever defined 'shot creation' as '"create" plenty of field goal attempts'.

If you're now changing the topic to creating high percentage shots, then yes that's important. Career TS% is the best indicator of the quality of your shots though. Obviously the frequency of your shots is important - getting lots of high quality shots is better than only a few. Someone who gets a lot of them will have higher win shares and wins produced though. The point is, you've now simply changed the topic to something that the sabermetrics do not overlook.

well ... back to my point

is there a sabermetric that tracks the high percentages of shots / makes taken in clutch situations and tie that into WS and WP? Maybe it does, I am just asking.

I think that would/should be weighted higher as far as producing wins.

Sabermetricians tend not to do that because the points count the same regardless of the time they are scored at. You could certainly define clutch and then calculate people's TS%s in the clutch. You could even calculate their Wins Produced or Win Shares during clutch points like they final six minutes of close games. I think several cognitive biases can help to explain why people overvalue whatever a player contributes close to the end of the game and devalue what occurs earlier though.

that is where I think this thinking is flawed.

Are you saying that Jordan hitting a jumper over Byron Russell with seconds to play to win a ring is not far more important to WP's than a 2nd quarter bucket in a seesaw game?

Bonn1997 wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:http://www.thenbageek.com/articles?tag=Wins+Produced
Here is a little bit:

And here I have to take a minute to address the myth of shot creation. Let's set the record straight on one thing: shot creation, in an absolute sense, simply does not exist. If you put a group of high schoolers on an NBA court, they may indeed have trouble ever getting a shot off vs. an NBA defense that was trying. But historically in the NBA, every team, no matter how bad, has been able to "create" plenty of field goal attempts. Ask the 1990-91 Denver Nuggets, who managed to lead the NBA in FGA and FGM (by a fairly wide margin) with one of its worst offenses and certainly the worst overall team. Consider also that every team, no matter how bad, always seems to have guys who score in double figures and get off lots of shots. Last year the Bobcats were arguably the worst team in NBA history, yet they had 5 guys who were above average in FGA/48 minutes). Somehow, NBA defenses were not shutting them down so much that they couldn't get shots off.

Therefore, arguments that revolve around statements like "Well, someone has to shoot" are generally not worthwhile in discussing "shot creation". Arguments that a player has value because he can "create his own shot" are not helpful, because almost any NBA wing player can do that. If this skill were rare, we would see big variablities in the FGA of teams from year to year. If this skill were rare, would the Bobcats have 5 guys that could do it? The 11/12 Bobcats?

I think 'shot creation' is poorly defined in the quoted text. When I say, 'Carmelo Anthony is great at creating his own shot' I'm not suggesting that he pulled the FGA out of thin air. What I'm saying is that on a one-on-one situation, he's better at getting a high percentage shot off relative to his peers. Kobe, Wade, Durant, Pierce, etc. fit this bill. Steve Novak, while an excellent shooter, is not in this class of 'creating his own shot'. I don't know a single person that has ever defined 'shot creation' as '"create" plenty of field goal attempts'.

If you're now changing the topic to creating high percentage shots, then yes that's important. Career TS% is the best indicator of the quality of your shots though. Obviously the frequency of your shots is important - getting lots of high quality shots is better than only a few. Someone who gets a lot of them will have higher win shares and wins produced though. The point is, you've now simply changed the topic to something that the sabermetrics do not overlook.

well ... back to my point

is there a sabermetric that tracks the high percentages of shots / makes taken in clutch situations and tie that into WS and WP? Maybe it does, I am just asking.

I think that would/should be weighted higher as far as producing wins.

Sabermetricians tend not to do that because the points count the same regardless of the time they are scored at. You could certainly define clutch and then calculate people's TS%s in the clutch. You could even calculate their Wins Produced or Win Shares during clutch points like they final six minutes of close games. I think several cognitive biases can help to explain why people overvalue whatever a player contributes close to the end of the game and devalue what occurs earlier though.

that is where I think this thinking is flawed.

Are you saying that Jordan hitting a jumper over Byron Russell with seconds to play to win a ring is not far more important to WP's than a 2nd quarter bucket in a seesaw game?

Assuming a few more details (both were 2 pointers, there were no fouls), then yes, they're both two points. 2 = 2

exactly!!

GM's, scouts and knowledgeable fans would not see this as plainly black and white.

A home run in extra innings in a tie game is not the same as a home run in the first inning in a 0-0 game even though 1 = 1. At least not to me.

dk7th wrote:"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Albert Einstein

when a player tries to go one on one and gets doubled, then puts up a shot instead of hitting the open man, the chances of success are going to be low.

so if you say a player has "created a shot" by forcing it over 2 players by definition that is insane.

in the 2008 finals this is exactly what bryant did against boston. we should closely monitor if carmelo does the same.

it is less the case if a player puts a shot up over a single defender-- but the provision should be that the type of shot he creates is a natural part of his arsenal. otherwise it is a forced shot and a low percentage shot. not insane but just dumb.

I absolutely agree that he should make that pass when the double comes and at times does not but some of what Bonn was saying is just wrong.

Shot creation is overvalued?

Clutch stats should be be valued higher than a non clutch situation?

dk7th wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:

dk7th wrote:"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Albert Einstein

when a player tries to go one on one and gets doubled, then puts up a shot instead of hitting the open man, the chances of success are going to be low.

so if you say a player has "created a shot" by forcing it over 2 players by definition that is insane.

in the 2008 finals this is exactly what bryant did against boston. we should closely monitor if carmelo does the same.

it is less the case if a player puts a shot up over a single defender-- but the provision should be that the type of shot he creates is a natural part of his arsenal. otherwise it is a forced shot and a low percentage shot. not insane but just dumb.

I absolutely agree that he should make that pass when the double comes and at times does not but some of what Bonn was saying is just wrong.

Shot creation is overvalued?

Clutch stats should be be valued higher than a non clutch situation?

lets agree that we can't speak of shot creation of itself. a value needs to be assigned to every shot. and then afterwards we can speak of context, clutch or otherwise.

i think almost everyone agrees that the worst shot is a low percentage shotor a shot with the lowest rate of return, such as a long 2. and then there's a shot forced over more than one defender-- unless you're shaquille o'neal, and even then they invented hack-a-shaq for this situation. i guess they may have done the same with wilt. of course shaq became a great passer after working with pete newell at his big man camp and that is exactly the time when the lakers started winning.

either way, a long 2 or a shot over two defenders have to be considered low percentage or bad shots, respectively.

so if a player takes a shot-- creates a shot-- in those situations, then of course "shot creation" is overvalued.

I do agree with that. However, if a shooter hits a long to at a high rate (> 45 pct) then it is a good shot (for him). It will also force contesting and open up the lane.

IronWillGiroud wrote:Creating your own shot is just having the balls to get a shot up. That's the difference between a guy that will shoot 41 times and not give a **** if he makes 18, it's because he's the guy that's taking it all on his shoulders. Most guys in NBA can create some sort of shot, they just don't have the balls, that's why Melo is a Superstar

he should give a **** if he wants to win titles. if the player has the balls to chuck up any old shot then he is by definition mindless. can't have it both ways.

dk7th wrote:Merry Christmas everyone!

Christmas sucks so bad now, I refuse your wish of merry