mreinman wrote:

dk7th wrote:

F500ONE wrote:Jason Smith another WIDE OPEN 16ft, he made it

i know, with the midrange. power forwards 6'10" with the midrange. could be a trend. still, smith is so soft.

so you're for that shot too? mid range jumpers?

you just need to agree with what he says even if it makes zero sense?

very strange.

no i agree with you... that in a pure math sense 33% from 3 is as good as 50% from 2.

however, you have to look what the opponent will do with 66% of shots missed versus 50% of shots missed. so far as i know we don't have a metric for that.

so in the meantime in a practical/intuitive sense i think that the cutoff point for a successful 3 point regimen is a few tenths shy of 40%.anything lower and i think diminishing returns really kick in.

still strange?

3rd Qtr 2:46
PHI 60 NYK 68

dk7th wrote:

mreinman wrote:

dk7th wrote:

F500ONE wrote:Jason Smith another WIDE OPEN 16ft, he made it

i know, with the midrange. power forwards 6'10" with the midrange. could be a trend. still, smith is so soft.

so you're for that shot too? mid range jumpers?

you just need to agree with what he says even if it makes zero sense?

very strange.

no i agree with you... that in a pure math sense 33% from 3 is as good as 50% from 2.

however, you have to look what the opponent will do with 66% of shots missed versus 50% of shots missed. so far as i know we don't have a metric for that.

Can't we just project from their defensive rebounds won and points per possession what they will do with those extra shots?

After we rip it from the top and let's take it to the bridge

I said a 1/////2 a 1/2/3 GO!!!!!

F500ONE wrote:

dk7th wrote:

mreinman wrote:

dk7th wrote:

F500ONE wrote:Jason Smith another WIDE OPEN 16ft, he made it

i know, with the midrange. power forwards 6'10" with the midrange. could be a trend. still, smith is so soft.

so you're for that shot too? mid range jumpers?

you just need to agree with what he says even if it makes zero sense?

very strange.

no i agree with you... that in a pure math sense 33% from 3 is as good as 50% from 2.

however, you have to look what the opponent will do with 66% of shots missed versus 50% of shots missed. so far as i know we don't have a metric for that.

so in the meantime in a practical/intuitive sense i think that the cutoff point for a successful 3 point regimen is a few tenths shy of 40%.anything lower and i think diminishing returns really kick in.

still strange?

I think what he wanted you to say was

Smith should have passed up shooting the WIDE OPEN shot

Because of where his location was at on the floor

This is the pure definition of intelligence

But to add to what you say there's also the ROI on 2s vs 3s

Paid in the form of getting teams in foul trouble and in the penalty

Which can force rotations sooner than desired and create mismatches in favor of the offense

More FTA are generated from taking shots inside the arc

I better slow down don't want to make you become dumberer here

no what you say makes sense as you explained it. i see a meta development in that (1) offenses stressed the 3-ball in order to stretch the defense and create driving lanes; (2) defenses have been geared towards closing out on threes so much that midrange shots are more available; (3) power forwards that are not stretch 4s are being told to work on that midrange.

it isn't a stretch to say that coaching staffs study film and look for any opening to exploit.

adapt or die. humphries did it the other night against the nets, griffin did it on national tv last week, dudes like smith or doing it tonight.

F500ONE wrote:Hey DK pass the FISH and chips

After we rip it from the top and let's take it to the bridge

I said a 1/////2 a 1/2/3 GO!!!!!

git on up
git on up
stay on the scene
like a sex machine

oh hi fish who told you we were having a party