dk7th wrote:

mreinman wrote:

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/

funny that was in the back of my mind as i wrote about long rebounds. visually it does not seem as though there are that many more long rebounds off missed threes in spite of the fact that long threes will "probably" end up as bricks.

that said, the other factor which is relevant is what happens with all 63% of the misses off of three point shots? seems to me that tkf is on to something here, even adjusting for pace.

that is what seems to be ignored here...

tkf wrote:

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?

would you really bonn.. so basically what you are saying is that if love took 20 shots per game... you would want him shooting a majority of those from three?

just asking..

Yes, this is exactly what everyone is saying.

H1AND1 wrote:

tkf wrote:

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?

would you really bonn.. so basically what you are saying is that if love took 20 shots per game... you would want him shooting a majority of those from three?

just asking..

Yes, this is exactly what everyone is saying.

so the NBA is just missing out. because I don't know any player that does that...

tkf wrote:

martin wrote:

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?

Yes Bonn, agreed.

TKF, it's obvious you want to put in some emotional argument to Love and his shooting, I am noticing you felt the need to put in the phrase "barely above average playing PF". I have no idea if Love is average playing or not, I don't watch him play and that's not the point of this discussion. We are purely talking shooting and FG percentages, and from that perspective Love is pretty darn good.

no martin don't speculate on my emoitions... I am asking a simple question.. would you want your 33% three point shooter taking half of his shots from three.. especially if he takes 20 shots per game.. your answer should be absolutely yes, since you think is is a no brainer.. so I ask.. why is no player in the league doing that.. and please don't say he is being guarded closely... who really focuses on a shooter who is barely hitting 3 out of 10 shots?

you ask the dumbest questions. Would I want a 33% 3-point shooter taking exactly half his shots from 3? WHo the **** cares?

All everyone but you understands is that eFG tells us something more than you are willing or want to understand. It's not about what we want the shooter to be doing, it's how we are interpreting the efficiency of what he IS doing.

tkf wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

tkf wrote:

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?

would you really bonn.. so basically what you are saying is that if love took 20 shots per game... you would want him shooting a majority of those from three?

just asking..

Yes, this is exactly what everyone is saying.

so the NBA is just missing out. because I don't know any player that does that...

martin wrote:

tkf wrote:

martin wrote:

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?

Yes Bonn, agreed.

TKF, it's obvious you want to put in some emotional argument to Love and his shooting, I am noticing you felt the need to put in the phrase "barely above average playing PF". I have no idea if Love is average playing or not, I don't watch him play and that's not the point of this discussion. We are purely talking shooting and FG percentages, and from that perspective Love is pretty darn good.

no martin don't speculate on my emoitions... I am asking a simple question.. would you want your 33% three point shooter taking half of his shots from three.. especially if he takes 20 shots per game.. your answer should be absolutely yes, since you think is is a no brainer.. so I ask.. why is no player in the league doing that.. and please don't say he is being guarded closely... who really focuses on a shooter who is barely hitting 3 out of 10 shots?

you ask the dumbest questions. Would I want a 33% 3-point shooter taking exactly half his shots from 3? WHo the **** cares?

All everyone but you understands is that eFG tells us something more than you are willing or want to understand. It's not about what we want the shooter to be doing, it's how we are interpreting the efficiency of what he IS doing.

martin the fact that YOU find it dumb is some what of a relief to me..

It's not about what we want the shooter to be doing, it's how we are interpreting the efficiency of what he IS doing.

NO martin that is exactly what I am talking about.. because this started when I said I don't want love shooting 7 threes a game!! I understand what EFG And TS tells me, and I am debating the use of it in this instance!!!!!!

Bonn1997 wrote:

tkf wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

tkf wrote:

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?

would you really bonn.. so basically what you are saying is that if love took 20 shots per game... you would want him shooting a majority of those from three?

just asking..

Yes, this is exactly what everyone is saying.

so the NBA is just missing out. because I don't know any player that does that...

I don't know any player that could do that (37% at 20 3s per game?!)

Thats because its hard for any decent 3 point shooter to get open/uncontested looks let alone 20 of them. An open 3 by Korver is probably the most efficient shot in the NBA yet he is only able to get off 6 attempts per game. And I am sure he is not passing up any of them (without forcing which would bring down his percentages).

Defenders are now taught to run good shooters off the 3 point line and force them into taking inefficient long 2's.

I have also read articles that suggested that the line needs to be moved further since its becoming too easy (like the dunk) and that it is making the mid range game very outdated and less valuable.

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

tkf wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

tkf wrote:

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?

would you really bonn.. so basically what you are saying is that if love took 20 shots per game... you would want him shooting a majority of those from three?

just asking..

Yes, this is exactly what everyone is saying.

so the NBA is just missing out. because I don't know any player that does that...

I don't know any player that could do that (37% at 20 3s per game?!)

Thats because its hard for any decent 3 point shooter to get open/uncontested looks let alone 20 of them. An open 3 by Korver is probably the most efficient shot in the NBA yet he is only able to get off 6 attempts per game. And I am sure he is not passing up any of them (without forcing which would bring down his percentages).

Defenders are now taught to run good shooters off the 3 point line and force them into taking inefficient long 2's.

I have also read articles that suggested that the line needs to be moved further since its becoming too easy (like the dunk) and that it is making the mid range game very outdated and less valuable.

not sure where bonn got 20 from.. I said half of 20 shots which would be 10..

Bonn1997 wrote:

tkf wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

tkf wrote:

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?

would you really bonn.. so basically what you are saying is that if love took 20 shots per game... you would want him shooting a majority of those from three?

just asking..

Yes, this is exactly what everyone is saying.

so the NBA is just missing out. because I don't know any player that does that...

I don't know any player that could do that (37% at 20 3s per game?!)

neither do I bonn, which is why I said the majority.. that could be 11 of 20 shots...

H1AND1 wrote:

tkf wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

tkf wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

tkf wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

tkf wrote:

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?

would you really bonn.. so basically what you are saying is that if love took 20 shots per game... you would want him shooting a majority of those from three?

just asking..

Yes, this is exactly what everyone is saying.

so the NBA is just missing out. because I don't know any player that does that...

There aren't any players that take more threes than twos? What?

The bottom line simplest answer is that if Kevin love shoots 37% from three and 47% or whatever it is he shoots from 2 he should shoot more threes because he's better at it. YES. In this case 37% is "better" than 47%.

see you are not following I already acknowledged kyle korver as a player that takes more threes than twos and justifiably so.. I said I don't see any player in the league that takes close to 20 shots per game and either half or most of them being threes...

Even the best 3 point shooters can't manage 10 attempts a game consistently. NBA defenses are too good these days.

But your hypothetical situation has nothing to do with anything. I thought we were talking about Kevin Love? Does the fact that Korver (or whoever else) shoots a better percentage at 3's have any bearing on how one evaluates Love?

why not? if you are shooting 37% from three I am sure there won't be many defenses trying to stop you...

steph curry who is a very good three point shooter shot 45 and 43% from three the past two seasons and pretty much got off 8 shots per game from there...

I have no doubt he can get off two more looks per game.. which is why with love I ask is he shooting too much considering his 3pt percentage is not really that good... a few years ago he attempted right at 3 threes a game, and he shot close to 42%..

so I think my question has some validity.. but instead of looking at things from different viewpoints I had several people including yourself insist on teaching me that 3 is more than 2.. which is not what I am debating here... because it leads me back to this point.. if it were just as simple as 37% from three is greater than 505 from two then we should ask, why isn't minny designing their offense around the kevin love three point shot? It would make sense right?

because we do know this..every team goal is to get as close as they can to the basket to score.. you don't see someone alone on a fast break back the ball out and shoot a three... unless the game clock is about to run out and they are down by 3...

honestly it can be an interesting debate if people stop trying to pound home points that are not being debated.....

Honestly dude, I'm not trying to teach you anything I'm just involved in a discussion. Don't understand why you get defensive and make posts where you tell me "I'm not following" your points as if I'm some idiot.

Think about this: everyone in this thread is arguing against your points, including Bonn, and telling your you are wrong. Now is it more likely everyone else is totally wrong and you are the only one who sees the light or is it the other way around?

Whatever I honestly was just trying to have a friendly debate but you keep taking opposing points as insults and it's kindve tiring. I'll just leave it at that, believe what you want but seriously read back the last page or two and understand that everyone is refuting what you're saying....

I said you were not following because you made a comment in which had you been following you would not have made.. but nevertheless thats cool..

Think about this: everyone in this thread is arguing against your points, including Bonn, and telling your you are wrong. Now is it more likely everyone else is totally wrong and you are the only one who sees the light or is it the other way around?

actually everyone isn't. Dk isn't... but honestly my objective isn't to agree with the masses.. everyone argued against myself and DK when we said this season would be a disaster..

silly me.. i guess we should have just given in then..

I would like to ask you this. what am i wrong about? you see you are just following the masses and not even following what is being asked or discussed here.. thats ok.. that happens a lot..

H1AND1 wrote:

tkf wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

tkf wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

tkf wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

tkf wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

tkf wrote:

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?

would you really bonn.. so basically what you are saying is that if love took 20 shots per game... you would want him shooting a majority of those from three?

just asking..

Yes, this is exactly what everyone is saying.

so the NBA is just missing out. because I don't know any player that does that...

There aren't any players that take more threes than twos? What?

The bottom line simplest answer is that if Kevin love shoots 37% from three and 47% or whatever it is he shoots from 2 he should shoot more threes because he's better at it. YES. In this case 37% is "better" than 47%.

see you are not following I already acknowledged kyle korver as a player that takes more threes than twos and justifiably so.. I said I don't see any player in the league that takes close to 20 shots per game and either half or most of them being threes...

Even the best 3 point shooters can't manage 10 attempts a game consistently. NBA defenses are too good these days.

But your hypothetical situation has nothing to do with anything. I thought we were talking about Kevin Love? Does the fact that Korver (or whoever else) shoots a better percentage at 3's have any bearing on how one evaluates Love?

why not? if you are shooting 37% from three I am sure there won't be many defenses trying to stop you...

steph curry who is a very good three point shooter shot 45 and 43% from three the past two seasons and pretty much got off 8 shots per game from there...

I have no doubt he can get off two more looks per game.. which is why with love I ask is he shooting too much considering his 3pt percentage is not really that good... a few years ago he attempted right at 3 threes a game, and he shot close to 42%..

so I think my question has some validity.. but instead of looking at things from different viewpoints I had several people including yourself insist on teaching me that 3 is more than 2.. which is not what I am debating here... because it leads me back to this point.. if it were just as simple as 37% from three is greater than 505 from two then we should ask, why isn't minny designing their offense around the kevin love three point shot? It would make sense right?

because we do know this..every team goal is to get as close as they can to the basket to score.. you don't see someone alone on a fast break back the ball out and shoot a three... unless the game clock is about to run out and they are down by 3...

honestly it can be an interesting debate if people stop trying to pound home points that are not being debated.....

Honestly dude, I'm not trying to teach you anything I'm just involved in a discussion. Don't understand why you get defensive and make posts where you tell me "I'm not following" your points as if I'm some idiot.

Think about this: everyone in this thread is arguing against your points, including Bonn, and telling your you are wrong. Now is it more likely everyone else is totally wrong and you are the only one who sees the light or is it the other way around?

Whatever I honestly was just trying to have a friendly debate but you keep taking opposing points as insults and it's kindve tiring. I'll just leave it at that, believe what you want but seriously read back the last page or two and understand that everyone is refuting what you're saying....

I said you were not following because you made a comment in which had you been following you would not have made.. but nevertheless thats cool..

Think about this: everyone in this thread is arguing against your points, including Bonn, and telling your you are wrong. Now is it more likely everyone else is totally wrong and you are the only one who sees the light or is it the other way around?

actually everyone isn't. Dk isn't... but honestly my objective isn't to agree with the masses.. everyone argued against myself and DK when we said this season would be a disaster..

silly me.. i guess we should have just given in then..

I would like to ask you this. what am i wrong about? you see you are just following the masses and not even following what is being asked or discussed here.. thats ok.. that happens a lot..

So you are correct in this thread because you predicted this Knicks season would be a disaster? And following "the masses" means being wrong always?

Again, why are you being so defensive?

Actually, you know what? You're right, I'm wrong. Silly me, for attempting to debate someone who clearly can never ever concede even the smallest point. I'm waving the white flag here. I'll gladly admit defeat here. Carry on.

no!! again stop with the being defensive.. more agitated with you guys trying to read emotion instead of focusing on the discussion..

I am asking you.. what am I wrong about.. lets start there...