Notice what I focused in some of the players I picked out for potential draft picks 4-5 long efficient interior players and the best 3 pt shooting PG that I have seen since Steph Curry or a PG with incredible FG proficiency who also has NBA all pro defensive skills. The Knick focus on raw players or inefficient players for MANY MANY years and still do.

BRIGGS wrote:I think there is some link to analytics but it shouldn't take a a scout or GM too much work to do a combination of eye testing and looking at a players %. If a guy like Tim Hardaway who played 3 years at a good school never shot better than 43%--than its unlikely he will shoot better than that in the NBA. If a guy smoked dope in college(Balkman) and got caught twice maybe its best to bypass him or atleast wait until rd 2. There are plenty of guys who are stiffs in college who have PER's of high 30--doesnt mean they can play a lick in the NBA. The Spurs who I consider the gold standard by far are interested in BIG players who have two way skills and a cadre of 3 pt shooters who can actually shoot it. Its pretty simple if you have 3-4 guys who can shoot the three and 3-4 guys who can score inside--then you open up the floor in terms of spacing. Thats the easiest way to turn this around. We need to find 3-4 guys who can shoot it from 3 and 3-4 guys who can score inside--we have a mid range shooter in Melo and we need another wing who can defend.

Notice what I focused in some of the players I picked out for potential draft picks 4-5 long efficient interior players and the best 3 pt shooting PG that I have seen since Steph Curry or a PG with incredible FG proficiency who also has NBA all pro defensive skills. The Knick focus on raw players or inefficient players for MANY MANY years and still do.

43 percent is not necessarily bad ... see james harden

you can have a low FG and a high TS if you shoot lots of FT's and make 3's at a good clip.

Paul Pierce has a career 44.7 FG and a 57 TS.

Bonn1997 wrote:Mid range is the one thing we don't need, though. Team offensive success is almost directly tied to shooting as few mid-range and as many close shots and corner 3s as possible. (The corner 3 is the closest 3 pointer and has a very high payoff.)
You're using the Spurs as an example? A few decades ago they took 15 mid range shots for every corner 3. Now they take 3 mid range shots for every corner 3. It's still very hard to get open corner 3s and close shots. So teams do have to resort to mid range shots. But the best teams try to shoot as few mid range shots as possible.
http://www.basketballanalyticsbook.com/2014/12/15/more-mid-range-and-less-corner-3s-does-it-identify-the-leagues-least-analytically-savvy/
The Knicks, Lakers, and Hornets are the only teams going against the trend and still taking a lot of mid-range shots. (That's probably Melo's gift to us.)

You can play the midrange game if you have guys who

Are very good in the area and do multiple things with and without the ball

Michael Jordan, Reggie Miller, Prime Rip Hamilton, Ray Allen,

Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, Zach Randolph, Marc Gasol, Kobe Bryant, Chris Paul

LaMarcus Aldridge, Steph Curry, Russell WestBrook, Kevin Durant, Dwyane Wade, Derrick Rose, Kyle Lowry

James Harden, Rajon Rondo, Anthony Davis, Blake Griffin[who's good at free throws], Jimmy Butler

Isn't crazy I named all these players and Knicks

Don't have 1 player on their team really close to any of them

Bonn1997 wrote:I thought this list was very interesting. You can see that some teams have analytics experts at the top, others (like us) rely on one or two scouts/consultants, and a few appear to have no analytics departments.
http://www.nbastuffer.com/component/option,com_glossary/Itemid,0/catid,44/func,view/term,NBA%20Teams%20That%20Have%20Analytics%20Department/

I don't think you can really conclude anything from that list- show me the metrics that say employing x amount of metrics = x amount of success because of the metrics deployed.

dk7th wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:I thought this list was very interesting. You can see that some teams have analytics experts at the top, others (like us) rely on one or two scouts/consultants, and a few appear to have no analytics departments.
http://www.nbastuffer.com/component/option,com_glossary/Itemid,0/catid,44/func,view/term,NBA%20Teams%20That%20Have%20Analytics%20Department/

I don't think you can really conclude anything from that list- show me the metrics that say employing x amount of metrics = x amount of success because of the metrics deployed.

the last 4 title winners all have a culture of advanced metrics driving their cause-- i mean dallas, miami, san antonio.

How about these analytics

http://www.sbnation.com/lookit/2014/12/17/7412859/carmelo-anthony-wears-his-weirdest-hats-when-the-knicks-lose

markvmc wrote:

dk7th wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:I thought this list was very interesting. You can see that some teams have analytics experts at the top, others (like us) rely on one or two scouts/consultants, and a few appear to have no analytics departments.
http://www.nbastuffer.com/component/option,com_glossary/Itemid,0/catid,44/func,view/term,NBA%20Teams%20That%20Have%20Analytics%20Department/

I don't think you can really conclude anything from that list- show me the metrics that say employing x amount of metrics = x amount of success because of the metrics deployed.

the last 4 title winners all have a culture of advanced metrics driving their cause-- i mean dallas, miami, san antonio.

Sounds like a pretty small sample size to me.

no it looks like a trend.

gunsnewing wrote:Those teams did not win solely based on metrics but yes the better teams have used metrics to their advantage

We have an anti-metric superstar and a completely anti-metric organzation the past 15yrs. This is why we are 5-30

Now im hopeful that the knicks will stop doing their business the prehistoric way under Phil. TBD

you know what? neither jordan nor bryant had superior TS%. but i am confident there are other advanced stats that they did excel at, especially jordan on the defensive side.

they come to mind because they participated in the triangle offense, which i merely intuit as an offense that does best with advanced players.

i wonder if there is someone who could take a close look at the TS% of jordan's and bryant's teammates to see hwo may stand out with great TS% for starters. and then of course the ratio of usage to assist rate (not raw assists but the amount of time assists were produced when said player was on the floor).

because if the success of the triangle does not correlate sufficiently with advanced statistics then jackson would be at cross purposes using advanced stats to rate players to work his system.

dk7th wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:Those teams did not win solely based on metrics but yes the better teams have used metrics to their advantage

We have an anti-metric superstar and a completely anti-metric organzation the past 15yrs. This is why we are 5-30

Now im hopeful that the knicks will stop doing their business the prehistoric way under Phil. TBD

you know what? neither jordan nor bryant had superior TS%. but i am confident there are other advanced stats that they did excel at, especially jordan on the defensive side.

they come to mind because they participated in the triangle offense, which i merely intuit as an offense that does best with advanced players.

i wonder if there is someone who could take a close look at the TS% of jordan's and bryant's teammates to see hwo may stand out with great TS% for starters. and then of course the ratio of usage to assist rate (not raw assists but the amount of time assists were produced when said player was on the floor).

because if the success of the triangle does not correlate sufficiently with advanced statistics then jackson would be at cross purposes using advanced stats to rate players to work his system.

What? Jordan's TS was 58 as a bull! That is definitely SUPERIOR.

And, considering that he was a below average 3 point shooter makes the 58 even more remarkable.

dk7th wrote:

mreinman wrote:

dk7th wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:Those teams did not win solely based on metrics but yes the better teams have used metrics to their advantage

We have an anti-metric superstar and a completely anti-metric organzation the past 15yrs. This is why we are 5-30

Now im hopeful that the knicks will stop doing their business the prehistoric way under Phil. TBD

you know what? neither jordan nor bryant had superior TS%. but i am confident there are other advanced stats that they did excel at, especially jordan on the defensive side.

they come to mind because they participated in the triangle offense, which i merely intuit as an offense that does best with advanced players.

i wonder if there is someone who could take a close look at the TS% of jordan's and bryant's teammates to see hwo may stand out with great TS% for starters. and then of course the ratio of usage to assist rate (not raw assists but the amount of time assists were produced when said player was on the floor).

because if the success of the triangle does not correlate sufficiently with advanced statistics then jackson would be at cross purposes using advanced stats to rate players to work his system.

What? Jordan's TS was 58 as a bull! That is definitely SUPERIOR.

And, considering that he was a below average 3 point shooter makes the 58 even more remarkable.

well as a bull he was almost 58%. those tenths of a percentage point do matter in my opinion.

more to the point, if he was a superior TS% advanced stat player then do advanced stats dovetail with the protocol by which jackson should be acquiring triangle players?

or does the success of the triangle depend less on advanced stat players? valid question?

Not sure I understand your question but even in the triangle, I am sure that advanced stats players are crucial.

The issue is that players take lots of midrange shots that are very anti advanced metrics.

So, you can have an advanced metric type player who is taking shots that are not gonna help their stats.

dk7th wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:I thought this list was very interesting. You can see that some teams have analytics experts at the top, others (like us) rely on one or two scouts/consultants, and a few appear to have no analytics departments.
http://www.nbastuffer.com/component/option,com_glossary/Itemid,0/catid,44/func,view/term,NBA%20Teams%20That%20Have%20Analytics%20Department/

I don't think you can really conclude anything from that list- show me the metrics that say employing x amount of metrics = x amount of success because of the metrics deployed.

the last 4 title winners all have a culture of advanced metrics driving their cause-- i mean dallas, miami, san antonio.

Oh come on, Miami had Wade, Bosh and Lebron- see how they look without Lebron? Oh they must be doing badly now because they didn't read the latest metrics...