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?

This is the right approach based on STATS. But it only holds true as long as another player doesn't have a better average or percentage yet. In that case you would want that player to take more shots. Having said basketball is not mathematical model it's a team game played on the floor by 5 players. There are lots of factors that can alter the approach to a game and it should not be dictated by shooting percentages alone. The basic game plan should be to maximize shots for your more efficient scorers. Then there should be backup plays or options you execute based on what your opponents are doing on defense. And this is precisely why you need coaches who can read that and make adjustment and not have knuckleheads like Woodson going with give it Melo at all costs. You also need a coach capable of teaching a predefined set of plays aka a system.

meloshouldgo 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?

This is the right approach based on STATS. But it only holds true as long as another player doesn't have a better average or percentage yet. In that case you would want that player to take more shots. Having said basketball is not mathematical model it's a team game played on the floor by 5 players. There are lots of factors that can alter the approach to a game and it should not be dictated by shooting percentages alone. The basic game plan should be to maximize shots for your more efficient scorers. Then there should be backup plays or options you execute based on what your opponents are doing on defense. And this is precisely why you need coaches who can read that and make adjustment and not have knuckleheads like Woodson going with give it Melo at all costs. You also need a coach capable of teaching a predefined set of plays aka a system.

excellent post and that is my point... which Is why I said I think 7 threes a game for a 37% three point shooter seems to be a lot.. especially when it is your PF who shoots a good percentage from inside the arc, is a premier rebounder and has the ability to get to the line.. i AM NOT SAying he shouldn't shoot threes just how many is in question..

mreinman wrote:Daryl Morey is changing the game and he is using his D-League team to experiment. He believes that there is no such thing as too many three's.

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/trio-grande-valley-daryl-moreys-d-league-plan-to-do-away-with-midrange-shots/

http://grantland.com/features/nba-dleague-rgv-vipers-houston-rockets-future-of-basketball/

I'll believe Morey, when his model actually starts working. If you have time look up Hoiberg and what he has done with his team shot selection. He is on the bottom of the coaching list but you never know.

mreinman wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

mreinman wrote:Daryl Morey is changing the game and he is using his D-League team to experiment. He believes that there is no such thing as too many three's.

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/trio-grande-valley-daryl-moreys-d-league-plan-to-do-away-with-midrange-shots/

http://grantland.com/features/nba-dleague-rgv-vipers-houston-rockets-future-of-basketball/

I'll believe Morey, when his model actually starts working. If you have time look up Hoiberg and what he has done with his team shot selection. He is on the bottom of the coaching list but you never know.

What Morey is doing is working. They play very competitive basketball and as good as you can expect without a PG.

And look how Atlanta over achieved jacking up 3's like mad men and they almost beat a #1 seed.

I hated MDA as a coach but the dude was onto something.

I will look up Hoiberg's view on shot selection. If you have a link, please post.

http://www.shotanalytics.com/2014/03/18/iowa-state-eliminated-mid-range-jumper/

you know how much trouble that was. j/k.

Also, ATL had the wrong people shooting and didn't do a great job with their rotations. Antic should never ever shoot 3's and Millsap needed to stop passing up open 3s. First time coach though so he gets a pass I guess.

This is exactly where Kevin Love should be (and is) shooting, either at the rim or beyond the arc (which ever one is available based on the defense). His stats in between are crappy as it is with most/many players.

tkf wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

mreinman wrote:Daryl Morey is changing the game and he is using his D-League team to experiment. He believes that there is no such thing as too many three's.

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/trio-grande-valley-daryl-moreys-d-league-plan-to-do-away-with-midrange-shots/

http://grantland.com/features/nba-dleague-rgv-vipers-houston-rockets-future-of-basketball/

I'll believe Morey, when his model actually starts working. If you have time look up Hoiberg and what he has done with his team shot selection. He is on the bottom of the coaching list but you never know.

What Morey is doing is working. They play very competitive basketball and as good as you can expect without a PG.

And look how Atlanta over achieved jacking up 3's like mad men and they almost beat a #1 seed.

I hated MDA as a coach but the dude was onto something.

I will look up Hoiberg's view on shot selection. If you have a link, please post.

http://www.shotanalytics.com/2014/03/18/iowa-state-eliminated-mid-range-jumper/

you know how much trouble that was. j/k.

Also, ATL had the wrong people shooting and didn't do a great job with their rotations. Antic should never ever shoot 3's and Millsap needed to stop passing up open 3s. First time coach though so he gets a pass I guess.

funny you say that, because we are told in this thread .33% from three is efficient.. and antic is right at 33%

33% is good but when you shoot 12% like he did in the playoffs it's terrible.

Lets be honest, OKC is NOT trading their picks for Chandler, at best 1 pick for both Chandler and Iman

OKC can sweeten to pot with 1 1st round picks in this draft, Perkins expiring, 1-2 of their younger players, and future draft picks

Now for 1 year to get that shooter to space the floor for Westbrook with Durant and Love with the improvement of Lamb

PnR with Westbrook and Durant/Love/Ibaka and in addition to Westbrook's ability to penetrate/finish is just unreal

Add that with a REAL head coach that calls plays and can get them to play DEF
Now if Ariza joins Westbrook with that team, the combination of shooters/length/athleticism is very intriguing
Most importantly, THEY FIT

Westbrook
Ariza *or trade for Iman, I think he can still be developed and with gym rats in Durant/Westbrook, his development would be 10x vs JR/Melo
Durant
Ibaka
Love

Jackson
Lamb
Perry Jones
Collison
Steven Adams

Fisher/Butler staying as veterans for locker room presence, and they will not get better offers unless going to a vet min team without state tax with the guarantee to make it to the playoffs and likely past the 2nd round+

Head Coach: Mark Jackson or George Karl, Heck even Dantoni would be able to run his system with those acquisitions even with Westbrook's lack of BB IQ with that type of talent

If I was Presti I would give them (Twolves) 5 picks, 3 1st round talents and 2 2nd rounders, with expirings for Kevin Love with 2 in this summers draft
Possibly even taking back players like Brewer that would fit for OKC and overpaid for a rebuilding team once again with some pieces and many draft picks

All these draft picks mean NOTHING if Durant decides to call it quits with frustration with management/Westbrook
The risk of not finding that 3rd star could leave Durant leaving OKC with the continued feud with Westbrook without that 3rd option and shooter/rebounder to hit down shots in 2016 summer
Love would be the GLUE and if they manage to get Ariza or rebuid Iman confidence/quickness at the 2/1 *on DEF* with Westbrook

Especially watching how Harden is easily deserving of a max contract and would have been the FUTURE of OKC with the "BIG 4", still many picks, and MLE to use to continue to improve

However, with Kevin Love, and if Durant improves his post game/facilitating a bit, in addition to Love's ability to already do both as the 2nd/3rd option, it would be GREAT playing both on and off the ball especially with his ability to rebound with Love, Ibaka, Durant, Westbrook, and Durant/Westbrook both will draw much attention away from Love vs Love on The Wolves

With Reggie Jackson easily being expendable for future assets as well

That is very hard to stop, with 4 legit 3pt shooters to space the floor and Ibaka being a very good shooter inside the 3pt line and capable of hitting WIDE OPEN 3pt shots as well

Ariza at the full 5m MLE for a contender like OKC is very realistic and can easily be done while moving some contracts like Thabeet (unguaranteed), Nick Collison (easily movable with his contract and abilities) for Kevin Love
Don't forget that the cap is predicted to be 5m higher, pushing the tax threshold 5m higher as well

This opens up the lane for Westbrook/Durant to continue to penetrate and finish as well

Bonn1997 wrote:

tkf wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

mreinman wrote:Daryl Morey is changing the game and he is using his D-League team to experiment. He believes that there is no such thing as too many three's.

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/trio-grande-valley-daryl-moreys-d-league-plan-to-do-away-with-midrange-shots/

http://grantland.com/features/nba-dleague-rgv-vipers-houston-rockets-future-of-basketball/

I'll believe Morey, when his model actually starts working. If you have time look up Hoiberg and what he has done with his team shot selection. He is on the bottom of the coaching list but you never know.

What Morey is doing is working. They play very competitive basketball and as good as you can expect without a PG.

And look how Atlanta over achieved jacking up 3's like mad men and they almost beat a #1 seed.

I hated MDA as a coach but the dude was onto something.

I will look up Hoiberg's view on shot selection. If you have a link, please post.

http://www.shotanalytics.com/2014/03/18/iowa-state-eliminated-mid-range-jumper/

you know how much trouble that was. j/k.

Also, ATL had the wrong people shooting and didn't do a great job with their rotations. Antic should never ever shoot 3's and Millsap needed to stop passing up open 3s. First time coach though so he gets a pass I guess.

funny you say that, because we are told in this thread .33% from three is efficient.. and antic is right at 33%

Just to be clear, .33% is 1 in 300!
Sorry, before I missed the word "majority" (when you were talking about Love taking 20 shots with the majority being 3s)

the period was an accident.. LOL...

mreinman wrote:This is chart says it all!

This is exactly where Kevin Love should be (and is) shooting, either at the rim or beyond the arc (which ever one is available based on the defense). His stats in between are crappy as it is with most/many players.

WELL IT DOESN'T SAY IT ALL, but i will clean this mess up..

For starters he shoots 63.6% from 0-5 ft at 423 fga

The killer is that he shoots 35.2% from 25-29ft and he attempted 250fg those are the threes he should not take END OF STORY!

The other numbers Break down like this
5-9 ft 39.9% 173fga
10-14 ft 37.7% 106fga
15-19ft 35.2% 128fga
20-24ft 41.7% 333fga

so between his 15-19ft range and 25-29ft range totally roughly 378fga he should distribute those to the 0-5ft and 20-24 ft.. If he can get off 423 fga at 0-5 ft at 63.6% then obviously he is capable of getting shotss off in that range.. so it is not the struggle you are making it out to be..

If I had to do a split It would be about 250 more fga at the rim 0-5ft and 128 more 3's from 20-24 ft

I basically took his worst inside % and worst outside % and came up with a shot distribution differential. obviously he can't take every shot at those ranges so you have to leave the other places of distribution alone, not to mention a couple of ranges showed he doesn't shoot many from there, such as 10-14 ft and 15-19 ft

then you should look at where does he shoot at the highest 3pt % 20-24 ft and maximize his shot distribution accordingly.. for example.. does he hit the left corner 3 at 50% and the right corner 3 at 36% and how the field goals break down..

this is exactly what the spurs and rockets do when scouting players for their system. when you shoot 63.6% from 0-5 ft you don't have to analyze where he is getting his shot off as in right or left of the basket because it is apparent once in that range its a extremely high percentage. not the same when shooting from beyond the arc because the scope is more vast...

mreinman wrote:

tkf wrote:

mreinman wrote:This is chart says it all!

This is exactly where Kevin Love should be (and is) shooting, either at the rim or beyond the arc (which ever one is available based on the defense). His stats in between are crappy as it is with most/many players.

WELL IT DOESN'T SAY IT ALL, but i will clean this mess up..

For starters he shoots 63.6% from 0-5 ft at 423 fga

The killer is that he shoots 35.2% from 25-29ft and he attempted 250fg those are the threes he should not take END OF STORY!

The other numbers Break down like this
5-9 ft 39.9% 173fga
10-14 ft 37.7% 106fga
15-19ft 35.2% 128fga
20-24ft 41.7% 333fga

so between his 15-19ft range and 25-29ft range totally roughly 378fga he should distribute those to the 0-5ft and 20-24 ft.. If he can get off 423 fga at 0-5 ft at 63.6% then obviously he is capable of getting shotss off in that range.. so it is not the struggle you are making it out to be..

If I had to do a split It would be about 250 more fga at the rim 0-5ft and 128 more 3's from 20-24 ft

I basically took his worst inside % and worst outside % and came up with a shot distribution differential. obviously he can't take every shot at those ranges so you have to leave the other places of distribution alone, not to mention a couple of ranges showed he doesn't shoot many from there, such as 10-14 ft and 15-19 ft

then you should look at where does he shoot at the highest 3pt % 20-24 ft and maximize his shot distribution accordingly.. for example.. does he hit the left corner 3 at 50% and the right corner 3 at 36% and how the field goals break down..

this is exactly what the spurs and rockets do when scouting players for their system. when you shoot 63.6% from 0-5 ft you don't have to analyze where he is getting his shot off as in right or left of the basket because it is apparent once in that range its a extremely high percentage. not the same when shooting from beyond the arc because the scope is more vast...

You see ... if you would just refrain from comments like:

WELL IT DOESN'T SAY IT ALL, but i will clean this mess up..

It would be much easier to converse with you respectfully.

The corner three's are closer and players shoot them at a much higher percentage. They are also assisted at a much higher rate, so they are catch and shoot and have a much higher 0 dribble rate.

Those are ideal but just as in all the other shots, they are not necessarily available. It would depend on what the defense is giving you and the type of offensive plays.

You can't just assume a player can get 100 more good 0-5 shots. This is similar to you stating that Curry can get more than 8 threes a game if he wanted and not lose efficiency or force the extra ones.

Love gets many of his non corner threes of picks on top of the key. Though they are not going in at the same rate of the corner 3, they are still very efficient shots at 35% (equivalent to a ~52% efg).

So this is wrong END OF STORY! (not sure why you need this "END OF STORY" endings, not a very respectful way to converse)

those are the threes he should not take END OF STORY!

some of the time through text and typing things come across as rude and that is not my intention at all.. I am very passionate about sports, so when I say END of Story, it is not directed towards you per say.... Kind of like.. "I don't like oakra".. END OF STORY....

As far as clean this mess up. I mean with that chart.. kind of hard to follow.. again, nothing to take offense to...

You can't just assume a player can get 100 more good 0-5 shots. This is similar to you stating that Curry can get more than 8 threes a game if he wanted and not lose efficiency or force the extra ones.

I don't see why he can't.. or close to it.. again, these are rough numbers.. nothing in concrete.. I guess my point is... he is getting almost 500 shots in that area, that should tell you a lot.. He can get those shots..

I don't get the curry comparison... do you really think someone would lose efficiency shooting 5 feet from the basket when they are already extremely efficient from there to start with?

But back to steph curry, we could pretty much assume that.. and here is why.

over the past 3-4 years he has almsot doubled his three point shooting output and it increased two years and this year went back down to 43%.. so he basically doubled his output almost and maintained an almost out of this world three point percentage.. because remember 37% is Highly efficient.. so 43% must be amazing...

mreinman wrote:TKF,

43 is beyond amazing and if he had the opportunity to get more off I am sure that he would. Trust me, he does not pass up any open 3's.

And I still don't get why you assume that Love can get up 100 more shots. Who says they are available? Some come on the break, some on pick and rolls, some on guard penetration / breakdown etc ...

I think what you are suggesting maybe is that he should play in the post more and they should run more of these sets. That all depends on offensive design put in place by the coach. A more spread out offense are what teams are being successful with.

Minny's problem is not Love but overall, their outside shooting is terrible and you can't win with awful shooting/shooters. If their shooters were better then Love would have even a higher pct from 3 since he would be more open.

My main point here is that you can't look at a shot chart and assume (especially right at the basket) that a player can get more clean looks. A player needs to take a variety of efficient shots and that often depends on the offensive system and the defense they are playing against.

What we can probably agree for Love (and most players) is that the mid range is the worst and lowest efficient shot in the game. They still need to be taken sometimes if that is what the defense is giving you and you need to keep them honest but offenses are pretty much being designed to eliminate these so called "sh1t shots".

ARE you telling I should then assume he shoots more threes because he can't get more shots inside? I am saying he is already taking a good amount in the paint, why not take more.. look around the league at the PF's guys like Blake griffin are getting over 700 shots there, now i know blake gets a lot of dunks but come on... those shots or attempts can be had... I have hard time belving a player like love is being FORCED to the perimeter.. and even if the defense has to adjust, then even the better for his team..

now his team does lack good shooters..but this is the type of data you use to build a team.. they need to add shooters...

My main point here is that you can't look at a shot chart and assume (especially right at the basket) that a player can get more clean looks. A player needs to take a variety of efficient shots and that often depends on the offensive system and the defense they are playing against.

sure there are other variables.. just like I asked should he be shooting that many threes.. do you know he is top 6 in attempts in the league...the other 5 players are guards...

my point is when I asked that question,it wasn't to say love should not take threes, or for you guys to try to give me a lesson on addition.. trust me I clearly understand the statistics... but it was to see what would be a good breaking point for love.. so just like you say you can't look at a shot chart and assume a player an get more clean looks.. we should not assume that because a player who shoots 37% from three is as good as 50% from two, he should be taking that many threes... in the end, it is whats best for the team first... right?