mreinman wrote:

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?

I don't get caught up in the adjectives, proficient versus merely efficient, that's just someone with too much time and vocabulary on their hands.

Some good baselines can be found here: http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_stats.html

Average eFG is around 50%. Average 3pt is 36%. For a PF to shoot 37% is very good IMHO.

The next step after that is to perhaps argue long rebounds and such, but that's an entirely different discussion IMHO.

mreinman wrote:

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.

Dude as I displayed I cleary understand TS and EFG I also understand the game of basketball, I think this is where you fall short...

no, I am going to post what you wrote.. but again, don't back track, he is shooting 40% from three... isn't that "highly efficient"

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.

nah don't try it...No one is giving steph curry threes, yet he is taking almost 8 a game and hitting them at close to 43% are defensive giving that to him?

mreinman
Posts: 22594
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 14/7/2010
Member: #3189

15/5/2014 10:42 PM
tkf wrote:
the wizards are going to be good, actually are good.. just not ready to beat a team like indy yet...

Their back court needs to shoot a much higher percentage.

I really like wall and he does enough to mask his shooting issues but beal needs to do much more if he will shoot this way.

these are your words.... you tried to cover up for wall tho..

but here are beals numbers.. 5 games vs the bulls.. 44% fg overall, he attempted 4.5 threes per game and shot 45.5% from three.. and he shot 88% from the FT line...

isn't 45.5% off the charts from three?

pacers series, he went from 15fga to 17 and his usage rate went up and FG% went from 44% to 41 and his three point attempts went from 4.4 to 5.2 per game... his three point % went from 45% to 38%, his FT attempts went from 5.2 to 3.8 and his FT% went from 88.5% to 69.6%

TS factors in total points in comparison to your FG attempts.... therefore you have to factor in Free throws.. well beal struggled with his FT's and that hurt his TS..

is that what you are knocking?

or are you knocking that he went from shooting off the charts kyle korver style in the chicago series down to the kevin love esque Highly efficient three point shooting of 38%? or are you arguing that he went from an overall 44% shooting to 41.2% FG shooting?

which one is it? because according to you if you look at the bulls series he should shoot more threes... well he did and all of his percentages went down..

the thing that confuses me is that you didn't defend beal using the same criteria you used to defend kevin love..

martin wrote:

mreinman wrote:

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?

I don't get caught up in the adjectives, proficient versus merely efficient, that's just someone with too much time and vocabulary on their hands.

Some good baselines can be found here: http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_stats.html

Average eFG is around 50%. Average 3pt is 36%. For a PF to shoot 37% is very good IMHO.

The next step after that is to perhaps argue long rebounds and such, but that's an entirely different discussion IMHO.

ok martin lets go with your point there. fair enough.. so for a guy who is barely above average playing PF, how many threes per game would yous say is too much?

martin wrote:

mreinman wrote:

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?

I don't get caught up in the adjectives, proficient versus merely efficient, that's just someone with too much time and vocabulary on their hands.

Some good baselines can be found here: http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_stats.html

Average eFG is around 50%. Average 3pt is 36%. For a PF to shoot 37% is very good IMHO.

The next step after that is to perhaps argue long rebounds and such, but that's an entirely different discussion IMHO.

tkf wrote:

martin wrote:

mreinman wrote:

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?

I don't get caught up in the adjectives, proficient versus merely efficient, that's just someone with too much time and vocabulary on their hands.

Some good baselines can be found here: http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_stats.html

Average eFG is around 50%. Average 3pt is 36%. For a PF to shoot 37% is very good IMHO.

The next step after that is to perhaps argue long rebounds and such, but that's an entirely different discussion IMHO.

ok martin lets go with your point there. fair enough.. so for a guy who is barely above average playing PF, how many threes per game would yous say is too much?

mreinman wrote:

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?

the eFG% takes into account both twos and threes together.

threes alone? i would say that you don't want a guy shooting around 3 for 8 or around 5 for 13 from 3 (57% eFG) because that is too many missed shots and scoring ops for the opponent, and it takes away from teammates who might become frozen out.

also i don't need to remind you that we are looking at these numbers "in a vacuum" as it were. i got into huge arguments with the know-it-alls at realgm about this notion of the importance of gauging the impact of missed shots. like anthony is almost always taking too many shots and has too many misses for the team's good.

dk7th wrote:

mreinman wrote:

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?

the eFG% takes into account both twos and threes together.

threes alone? i would say that you don't want a guy shooting around 3 for 8 or around 5 for 13 from 3 (57% eFG) because that is too many missed shots and scoring ops for the opponent, and it takes away from teammates who might become frozen out.

also i don't need to remind you that we are looking at these numbers "in a vacuum" as it were. i got into huge arguments with the know-it-alls at realgm about this notion of the importance of gauging the impact of missed shots. like anthony is almost always taking too many shots and has too many misses for the team's good.

Please lets keep Carmelo out of this

The number of misses argument does not fly at all. You can say the same about the number of made 2's not being enough points. You need to look at points per possession.

Now you can talk about freezing out players which I don't think has anything to do with 2 vs 3's but just ISO bs and unselfish basketball.

The long rebound argument was a nice idea and I researched it after you mentioned it.

I am open to all arguments and I am always willing to learn but they need to be real arguments not just bigs should shoot 3's not 2's because they go in more often.

martin wrote:

mreinman wrote:

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?

I don't get caught up in the adjectives, proficient versus merely efficient, that's just someone with too much time and vocabulary on their hands.

Some good baselines can be found here: http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_stats.html

Average eFG is around 50%. Average 3pt is 36%. For a PF to shoot 37% is very good IMHO.

The next step after that is to perhaps argue long rebounds and such, but that's an entirely different discussion IMHO.

martin it's no secret that i like words and i don't seem to be the only one with "too much time on my hands." i don't want to tell you how to run your website but in my opinion that comment was a touch unkind and gratuitous.

dk7th wrote:

martin wrote:

mreinman wrote:

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?

I don't get caught up in the adjectives, proficient versus merely efficient, that's just someone with too much time and vocabulary on their hands.

Some good baselines can be found here: http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_stats.html

Average eFG is around 50%. Average 3pt is 36%. For a PF to shoot 37% is very good IMHO.

The next step after that is to perhaps argue long rebounds and such, but that's an entirely different discussion IMHO.

martin it's no secret that i like words and i don't seem to be the only one with "too much time on my hands." i don't want to tell you how to run your website but in my opinion that comment was a touch unkind and gratuitous.

it was fun

post more to that Alba thread and then we can really talk about too much time on hands.

dk7th wrote:

martin wrote:

dk7th wrote:

martin wrote:

mreinman wrote:

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?

I don't get caught up in the adjectives, proficient versus merely efficient, that's just someone with too much time and vocabulary on their hands.

Some good baselines can be found here: http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_stats.html

Average eFG is around 50%. Average 3pt is 36%. For a PF to shoot 37% is very good IMHO.

The next step after that is to perhaps argue long rebounds and such, but that's an entirely different discussion IMHO.

martin it's no secret that i like words and i don't seem to be the only one with "too much time on my hands." i don't want to tell you how to run your website but in my opinion that comment was a touch unkind and gratuitous.

it was fun

post more to that Alba thread and then we can really talk about too much time on hands.

okay, i will see what i can come up with.

Or the Great Butt or Rack of the Day thread

Bonn1997 wrote:

tkf wrote:

martin wrote:

mreinman wrote:

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?

I don't get caught up in the adjectives, proficient versus merely efficient, that's just someone with too much time and vocabulary on their hands.

Some good baselines can be found here: http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_stats.html

Average eFG is around 50%. Average 3pt is 36%. For a PF to shoot 37% is very good IMHO.

The next step after that is to perhaps argue long rebounds and such, but that's an entirely different discussion IMHO.

ok martin lets go with your point there. fair enough.. so for a guy who is barely above average playing PF, how many threes per game would yous say is too much?

Wouldn't you want him to shoot as much as possible unless his percentage dips to average or below average?

just asking..