djsunyc wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

djsunyc wrote:these playoffs have changed the way i evaluate players. up until this year, i've always evaluated players on how the team plays and throughout the course of a season. but the raptors now have been to the playoffs 3 years in a row so i had to change to start evaluating guys on how they perform in the playoffs.

i do not like derozan's game. he frustrates the heck out of me. but his ability to score in a half court set in the playoffs when you need buckets is a dimension that is very tough to replace. we could replace him with a guy like batum and become this great multi-faceted more efficient attack but with the game on the line in the playoffs, can batum keep going at the cavs and scoring? i don't think he can.

the key is to limit derozan's bad and put him in more efficient situations. hope casey changes the offense a bit next year - but i think he understands he has to.

OK, but that's not the kind of description I'd want to use for a max contract player. $10 mil like this year? Sure.

in all honesty - the knicks (and a number of other teams) are still in the mode of looking for the regular season player - looking for guys to establish a winning culture from nov - april. derozan is a very good regular season player, model citizen and franchise guy. he is entering his prime and getting better every year. the new nba contracts given out are going to take folks a while to adjust to but he is a max player in this current nba climate. he is no different than a guy like lamarcus aldridge and i think he has more "edge" than aldridge too. but he's effective b/c lowry is the alpha dog - so the team will require one if you want him to join. but this discussion is hypothetical b/c the chances he leaves toronto are like 0.01%.

Cartman718 wrote:watching derozan yesterday, it seemed like if he can hit that mid-range shot consistently...that's what we need!

if ... but he hasn't and he is in year 7.

mreinman wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

mreinman wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

mreinman wrote:

djsunyc wrote:we have grit and we fight.

we survived two game 7's. i think those were huge in terms of our development. after blowing an 18 point lead and then actually giving up the lead in the 4th, we still came back to win. probably the best win in franchise history.

this is the same team that got swept last year in the first round.

ujiri did not panic - believed in it's core and added to it with 3 tough defensive minded guys - biz + dec + cojo.

i have criticized casey thoroughly for many year but he has this team 1 win away from being 1 win away. he was the defensive coordinator for the mavs when they beat miami in the finals so maybe he has a good idea on how to contain a lebron team?

still think the smart money is on the cavs winning the series but that's why you play the games.

eny is right - if lowry is hitting shots, we have a chance to beat any team. that was also dd's best game i've ever seen him play considering the stakes.

i think casey + staff anticipated cavs going to mosgov a bit to put a big body on biz. that's why we activated jonas in case that happened. if jonas can come back healthy - we have a legit shot at anyone. playoffs man - throw everything from the regular season out the window - it's just one possession at a time. anything can happen.

People don't realize how much Cory Joseph means to that team and how much pressure he takes of Lowry.

He has been really good all playoffs. Even being a go to guy late in the 4th when Lowry was struggling.

Not even that Lowry is struggling but sometimes they would rather Lowry playing off the ball and it also depends who is guarding who.

Outside of the great defense he has played the last 2 games. He is probably the high efficient high IQ type of player Phil was trying to nab when he traded for Calderon.

well ... phil coulda had him if that trade was not stupidly nixed.

I was talking about Joseph not Lowry

mreinman wrote:

Chandler wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Chandler wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:Derozan really impressed me this series. Didn't think it was possible for a shooting guard in today's NBA to score back to back 32 point games efficiently without taking 3s.

yes but its a bit feast or famine with him especially since he can't shoot 3's.

He's not really that good at 2s either (in the last 3 years, .447 overall and .405 in the playoffs).

His efficiency comes from getting to the line and being a very good FT shooter.

This.^. It's not about the last two games. I've been raising his name all year

There's a lot to be said for a guy who continues to attack the rim. Not only does that yield FT (at least in part he regular season when whistles are actually blown) but the opponent gets in foul trouble w potentially enormous benefit from their being less aggressive on offense and defense late in the game. There's no good stat to capture that but it's real.

Also there's a lot to be said for midrange game when done right. Missing 3s can lead to long rebounds and fast breaks. Midrange and down low you have a better chance to establish your defense.

the bolded part is a very old school way of thinking that has pretty much been disproved and thrown out. The long rebound theory has been studied and teams actually have better chances at offensive rebounding 3's than 2's.

Also, teams shoot an average of 35% from 3 and barely 40% from mid to long 2's. The 5% diff is beyond negligible if one would attempt to make your above argument. The Effective Field Goal difference is huge.

i disagree. Even using your numbers you can see that there are more rebound opportunities with 3s than with 2s because there are more misses. And the issue is not just the amount but the kind: missed thress tend to yield long rebounds with the defense gathering them with momentum and off to the races. On top of that, if you play down low and draw fouls FTs negate that fast break opportunity

having said that, i am not a fan of long 2s and you barely 40% i suspect includes those shots. Scoring in the post is much higher than 40%

again, you are making assumptions about rebounds / long rebounds / rebound opps that are not correct or at least lacking data. There are extensive studies about what kind of threes lead to what kind of rebounds and who gets those rebounds. Search for "where do rebounds go", there is a good study that will come up.

We agree that long 2's are bad so that is good but as far as the post, I have no problem with post play as long as its efficient and does not stagnate the offense. Not throwing the ball to a guy like Shaq in the post would have been a crime! And kobe committed many of those crimes. Throwing the ball to a guy like Dwight Howard in the post does more harm than good.

i took your advice and checked. This article seemed decent. http://grantland.com/features/how-rebounds-work/

It said:
"Distance Matters

The idea that longer shots elicit longer rebounds is not new; it’s conventional basketball wisdom, and it’s supported by basic physics. Still, the tracking data enables us to drill down on this effect in much more detail. The tracking system enables us to visualize the distance effect like never before. Here we see that the average rebound distance grows along with shot distance"

In other words, long shots means long rebounds. It also said: "Last year, almost 80 percent of all NBA rebounds happened within eight feet of the hoop," meaning 20% of shots are 8 feet or longer -- guess where those atypically long rebounds came from -- not from FTs or shots in the post. Those 20% are the ones that can yield fast breaks against the defense.

ALso this is an interesting article. It shows where you might be more likely to get an offensive rebound, but you'll note in every situation the defense still has the advantage of getting the rebound -- hardly surprising since they tend to have much better inside position
http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/entry/charting_3_point_rebounds

So the net result is longer shots yield longer rebounds, with the defense more likely to get any of them. 20% at least will be 8 feet or more a way with an opportuntiy to turn that into a fast break

So while I know you're keen to criticize, I'm not sure what your point is or what it's based on. Are you arguing that shooting 3s is better for your team's defense and if so why? The data shows the opposite: it creates more rebounding opportunities (and rebounds) for the defense and a good percentage of those may yield fast break opportunities

So while I agree shooting 3s is important for your offense (e.g., 40% from 3, is better than 50% from 2), it's wrong to get hypnotized by this alone -- you need to consider what happens on the other 60 or 50% of misses and what kind of opportunities it creates

And more fundamentally I dont think whatever point youre trying to make has an effect on Demar's value. His biggest efficiency is driving to the basket and drawing fouls. An 80% FT shooter is worth 1.6 points per visit to the foul line (this doesn't assume an AND1 which makes things even better). In other words driving to the rim and getting fouled is better than 40% from three or 50% from two. Plus you get the opponent in foul trouble -- perhaps fouling them out or at least causing them to be more tenative on defense AND on offense again benefits to your team

Chandler wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Chandler wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Chandler wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:Derozan really impressed me this series. Didn't think it was possible for a shooting guard in today's NBA to score back to back 32 point games efficiently without taking 3s.

yes but its a bit feast or famine with him especially since he can't shoot 3's.

He's not really that good at 2s either (in the last 3 years, .447 overall and .405 in the playoffs).

His efficiency comes from getting to the line and being a very good FT shooter.

This.^. It's not about the last two games. I've been raising his name all year

There's a lot to be said for a guy who continues to attack the rim. Not only does that yield FT (at least in part he regular season when whistles are actually blown) but the opponent gets in foul trouble w potentially enormous benefit from their being less aggressive on offense and defense late in the game. There's no good stat to capture that but it's real.

Also there's a lot to be said for midrange game when done right. Missing 3s can lead to long rebounds and fast breaks. Midrange and down low you have a better chance to establish your defense.

the bolded part is a very old school way of thinking that has pretty much been disproved and thrown out. The long rebound theory has been studied and teams actually have better chances at offensive rebounding 3's than 2's.

Also, teams shoot an average of 35% from 3 and barely 40% from mid to long 2's. The 5% diff is beyond negligible if one would attempt to make your above argument. The Effective Field Goal difference is huge.

i disagree. Even using your numbers you can see that there are more rebound opportunities with 3s than with 2s because there are more misses. And the issue is not just the amount but the kind: missed thress tend to yield long rebounds with the defense gathering them with momentum and off to the races. On top of that, if you play down low and draw fouls FTs negate that fast break opportunity

having said that, i am not a fan of long 2s and you barely 40% i suspect includes those shots. Scoring in the post is much higher than 40%

again, you are making assumptions about rebounds / long rebounds / rebound opps that are not correct or at least lacking data. There are extensive studies about what kind of threes lead to what kind of rebounds and who gets those rebounds. Search for "where do rebounds go", there is a good study that will come up.

We agree that long 2's are bad so that is good but as far as the post, I have no problem with post play as long as its efficient and does not stagnate the offense. Not throwing the ball to a guy like Shaq in the post would have been a crime! And kobe committed many of those crimes. Throwing the ball to a guy like Dwight Howard in the post does more harm than good.

i took your advice and checked. This article seemed decent. http://grantland.com/features/how-rebounds-work/

It said:
"Distance Matters

The idea that longer shots elicit longer rebounds is not new; it’s conventional basketball wisdom, and it’s supported by basic physics. Still, the tracking data enables us to drill down on this effect in much more detail. The tracking system enables us to visualize the distance effect like never before. Here we see that the average rebound distance grows along with shot distance"

In other words, long shots means long rebounds. It also said: "Last year, almost 80 percent of all NBA rebounds happened within eight feet of the hoop," meaning 20% of shots are 8 feet or longer -- guess where those atypically long rebounds came from -- not from FTs or shots in the post. Those 20% are the ones that can yield fast breaks against the defense.

ALso this is an interesting article. It shows where you might be more likely to get an offensive rebound, but you'll note in every situation the defense still has the advantage of getting the rebound -- hardly surprising since they tend to have much better inside position
http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/entry/charting_3_point_rebounds

So the net result is longer shots yield longer rebounds, with the defense more likely to get any of them. 20% at least will be 8 feet or more a way with an opportuntiy to turn that into a fast break

So while I know you're keen to criticize, I'm not sure what your point is or what it's based on. Are you arguing that shooting 3s is better for your team's defense and if so why? The data shows the opposite: it creates more rebounding opportunities (and rebounds) for the defense and a good percentage of those may yield fast break opportunities

So while I agree shooting 3s is important for your offense (e.g., 40% from 3, is better than 50% from 2), it's wrong to get hypnotized by this alone -- you need to consider what happens on the other 60 or 50% of misses and what kind of opportunities it creates

And more fundamentally I dont think whatever point youre trying to make has an effect on Demar's value. His biggest efficiency is driving to the basket and drawing fouls. An 80% FT shooter is worth 1.6 points per visit to the foul line (this doesn't assume an AND1 which makes things even better). In other words driving to the rim and getting fouled is better than 40% from three or 50% from two. Plus you get the opponent in foul trouble -- perhaps fouling them out or at least causing them to be more tenative on defense AND on offense again benefits to your team

Nobody is arguing that close shots are worse than 3's. That would obviously depend on who is shooting them and how efficient they are at each.

You compared the 3's rebounded against the close shots but compare 3's vs long 2's. I think that its hard to make a case that a shot between 15-22 (arc) would have anywhere close to the value of the 3.

Of course you have exceptions with guys who can't shoot 3's but are super efficient from 2 and vice versa but as a general rule. That shot should be avoided.

The primary goal is always to get shots around the basket. The second best shot is the 3. What is the cutoff point (e.g. considered a close shot)? That is above my paygrade and there are actuaries that spend their whole day working on these things.

Bonn1997 wrote:

djsunyc wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

djsunyc wrote:these playoffs have changed the way i evaluate players. up until this year, i've always evaluated players on how the team plays and throughout the course of a season. but the raptors now have been to the playoffs 3 years in a row so i had to change to start evaluating guys on how they perform in the playoffs.

i do not like derozan's game. he frustrates the heck out of me. but his ability to score in a half court set in the playoffs when you need buckets is a dimension that is very tough to replace. we could replace him with a guy like batum and become this great multi-faceted more efficient attack but with the game on the line in the playoffs, can batum keep going at the cavs and scoring? i don't think he can.

the key is to limit derozan's bad and put him in more efficient situations. hope casey changes the offense a bit next year - but i think he understands he has to.

OK, but that's not the kind of description I'd want to use for a max contract player. $10 mil like this year? Sure.

in all honesty - the knicks (and a number of other teams) are still in the mode of looking for the regular season player - looking for guys to establish a winning culture from nov - april. derozan is a very good regular season player, model citizen and franchise guy. he is entering his prime and getting better every year. the new nba contracts given out are going to take folks a while to adjust to but he is a max player in this current nba climate. he is no different than a guy like lamarcus aldridge and i think he has more "edge" than aldridge too. but he's effective b/c lowry is the alpha dog - so the team will require one if you want him to join. but this discussion is hypothetical b/c the chances he leaves toronto are like 0.01%.

On a max contract, I think Derozan is a terrible regular season option. For the same price, I'd rather have 4 strong role players.
Just to be clear: I'm not picking on Toronto. I think what they've accomplished with their payroll this year is outstanding.

Chandler wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Chandler wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Chandler wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Chandler wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:Derozan really impressed me this series. Didn't think it was possible for a shooting guard in today's NBA to score back to back 32 point games efficiently without taking 3s.

yes but its a bit feast or famine with him especially since he can't shoot 3's.

He's not really that good at 2s either (in the last 3 years, .447 overall and .405 in the playoffs).

His efficiency comes from getting to the line and being a very good FT shooter.

This.^. It's not about the last two games. I've been raising his name all year

There's a lot to be said for a guy who continues to attack the rim. Not only does that yield FT (at least in part he regular season when whistles are actually blown) but the opponent gets in foul trouble w potentially enormous benefit from their being less aggressive on offense and defense late in the game. There's no good stat to capture that but it's real.

Also there's a lot to be said for midrange game when done right. Missing 3s can lead to long rebounds and fast breaks. Midrange and down low you have a better chance to establish your defense.

the bolded part is a very old school way of thinking that has pretty much been disproved and thrown out. The long rebound theory has been studied and teams actually have better chances at offensive rebounding 3's than 2's.

Also, teams shoot an average of 35% from 3 and barely 40% from mid to long 2's. The 5% diff is beyond negligible if one would attempt to make your above argument. The Effective Field Goal difference is huge.

i disagree. Even using your numbers you can see that there are more rebound opportunities with 3s than with 2s because there are more misses. And the issue is not just the amount but the kind: missed thress tend to yield long rebounds with the defense gathering them with momentum and off to the races. On top of that, if you play down low and draw fouls FTs negate that fast break opportunity

having said that, i am not a fan of long 2s and you barely 40% i suspect includes those shots. Scoring in the post is much higher than 40%

again, you are making assumptions about rebounds / long rebounds / rebound opps that are not correct or at least lacking data. There are extensive studies about what kind of threes lead to what kind of rebounds and who gets those rebounds. Search for "where do rebounds go", there is a good study that will come up.

We agree that long 2's are bad so that is good but as far as the post, I have no problem with post play as long as its efficient and does not stagnate the offense. Not throwing the ball to a guy like Shaq in the post would have been a crime! And kobe committed many of those crimes. Throwing the ball to a guy like Dwight Howard in the post does more harm than good.

i took your advice and checked. This article seemed decent. http://grantland.com/features/how-rebounds-work/

It said:
"Distance Matters

The idea that longer shots elicit longer rebounds is not new; it’s conventional basketball wisdom, and it’s supported by basic physics. Still, the tracking data enables us to drill down on this effect in much more detail. The tracking system enables us to visualize the distance effect like never before. Here we see that the average rebound distance grows along with shot distance"

In other words, long shots means long rebounds. It also said: "Last year, almost 80 percent of all NBA rebounds happened within eight feet of the hoop," meaning 20% of shots are 8 feet or longer -- guess where those atypically long rebounds came from -- not from FTs or shots in the post. Those 20% are the ones that can yield fast breaks against the defense.

ALso this is an interesting article. It shows where you might be more likely to get an offensive rebound, but you'll note in every situation the defense still has the advantage of getting the rebound -- hardly surprising since they tend to have much better inside position
http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/entry/charting_3_point_rebounds

So the net result is longer shots yield longer rebounds, with the defense more likely to get any of them. 20% at least will be 8 feet or more a way with an opportuntiy to turn that into a fast break

So while I know you're keen to criticize, I'm not sure what your point is or what it's based on. Are you arguing that shooting 3s is better for your team's defense and if so why? The data shows the opposite: it creates more rebounding opportunities (and rebounds) for the defense and a good percentage of those may yield fast break opportunities

So while I agree shooting 3s is important for your offense (e.g., 40% from 3, is better than 50% from 2), it's wrong to get hypnotized by this alone -- you need to consider what happens on the other 60 or 50% of misses and what kind of opportunities it creates

And more fundamentally I dont think whatever point youre trying to make has an effect on Demar's value. His biggest efficiency is driving to the basket and drawing fouls. An 80% FT shooter is worth 1.6 points per visit to the foul line (this doesn't assume an AND1 which makes things even better). In other words driving to the rim and getting fouled is better than 40% from three or 50% from two. Plus you get the opponent in foul trouble -- perhaps fouling them out or at least causing them to be more tenative on defense AND on offense again benefits to your team

Nobody is arguing that close shots are worse than 3's. That would obviously depend on who is shooting them and how efficient they are at each.

You compared the 3's rebounded against the close shots but compare 3's vs long 2's. I think that its hard to make a case that a shot between 15-22 (arc) would have anywhere close to the value of the 3.

Of course you have exceptions with guys who can't shoot 3's but are super efficient from 2 and vice versa but as a general rule. That shot should be avoided.

The primary goal is always to get shots around the basket. The second best shot is the 3. What is the cutoff point (e.g. considered a close shot)? That is above my paygrade and there are actuaries that spend their whole day working on these things.

Nice dodge

You criticized my point about the value of midrange when done right calling it old school.

I explained the concern w long rebounds from long misses and now your talking long twos.

You like to talk the game of analytics but can't back it up

Driving and drawing fouls wins.

you are just trying to be a bit of a jerk and make an issue where there is none.

you are the one who keeps misusing midrange for close shots and getting fouled. Since when does one drive, take a midrange shot and get fouled?

Again, I said this a thousand times - the best shots are at the rim. The ones that are highly efficient and the ones that will get you to the line. No one is arguing that. Mid range jump shots especially those > ~12-15+ feet are the worst shots, obviously the longer the shot the worse it is.

If you have a point to make specifically about these shots then make it. If you agree that long 2's are not good shots but short ones can be ok then that's fine, it just depends on where you believe that line starts.

mreinman wrote:

Chandler wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Chandler wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Chandler wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Chandler wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:Derozan really impressed me this series. Didn't think it was possible for a shooting guard in today's NBA to score back to back 32 point games efficiently without taking 3s.

yes but its a bit feast or famine with him especially since he can't shoot 3's.

He's not really that good at 2s either (in the last 3 years, .447 overall and .405 in the playoffs).

His efficiency comes from getting to the line and being a very good FT shooter.

This.^. It's not about the last two games. I've been raising his name all year

There's a lot to be said for a guy who continues to attack the rim. Not only does that yield FT (at least in part he regular season when whistles are actually blown) but the opponent gets in foul trouble w potentially enormous benefit from their being less aggressive on offense and defense late in the game. There's no good stat to capture that but it's real.

Also there's a lot to be said for midrange game when done right. Missing 3s can lead to long rebounds and fast breaks. Midrange and down low you have a better chance to establish your defense.

the bolded part is a very old school way of thinking that has pretty much been disproved and thrown out. The long rebound theory has been studied and teams actually have better chances at offensive rebounding 3's than 2's.

Also, teams shoot an average of 35% from 3 and barely 40% from mid to long 2's. The 5% diff is beyond negligible if one would attempt to make your above argument. The Effective Field Goal difference is huge.

i disagree. Even using your numbers you can see that there are more rebound opportunities with 3s than with 2s because there are more misses. And the issue is not just the amount but the kind: missed thress tend to yield long rebounds with the defense gathering them with momentum and off to the races. On top of that, if you play down low and draw fouls FTs negate that fast break opportunity

having said that, i am not a fan of long 2s and you barely 40% i suspect includes those shots. Scoring in the post is much higher than 40%

again, you are making assumptions about rebounds / long rebounds / rebound opps that are not correct or at least lacking data. There are extensive studies about what kind of threes lead to what kind of rebounds and who gets those rebounds. Search for "where do rebounds go", there is a good study that will come up.

We agree that long 2's are bad so that is good but as far as the post, I have no problem with post play as long as its efficient and does not stagnate the offense. Not throwing the ball to a guy like Shaq in the post would have been a crime! And kobe committed many of those crimes. Throwing the ball to a guy like Dwight Howard in the post does more harm than good.

i took your advice and checked. This article seemed decent. http://grantland.com/features/how-rebounds-work/

It said:
"Distance Matters

The idea that longer shots elicit longer rebounds is not new; it’s conventional basketball wisdom, and it’s supported by basic physics. Still, the tracking data enables us to drill down on this effect in much more detail. The tracking system enables us to visualize the distance effect like never before. Here we see that the average rebound distance grows along with shot distance"

In other words, long shots means long rebounds. It also said: "Last year, almost 80 percent of all NBA rebounds happened within eight feet of the hoop," meaning 20% of shots are 8 feet or longer -- guess where those atypically long rebounds came from -- not from FTs or shots in the post. Those 20% are the ones that can yield fast breaks against the defense.

ALso this is an interesting article. It shows where you might be more likely to get an offensive rebound, but you'll note in every situation the defense still has the advantage of getting the rebound -- hardly surprising since they tend to have much better inside position
http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/entry/charting_3_point_rebounds

So the net result is longer shots yield longer rebounds, with the defense more likely to get any of them. 20% at least will be 8 feet or more a way with an opportuntiy to turn that into a fast break

So while I know you're keen to criticize, I'm not sure what your point is or what it's based on. Are you arguing that shooting 3s is better for your team's defense and if so why? The data shows the opposite: it creates more rebounding opportunities (and rebounds) for the defense and a good percentage of those may yield fast break opportunities

So while I agree shooting 3s is important for your offense (e.g., 40% from 3, is better than 50% from 2), it's wrong to get hypnotized by this alone -- you need to consider what happens on the other 60 or 50% of misses and what kind of opportunities it creates

And more fundamentally I dont think whatever point youre trying to make has an effect on Demar's value. His biggest efficiency is driving to the basket and drawing fouls. An 80% FT shooter is worth 1.6 points per visit to the foul line (this doesn't assume an AND1 which makes things even better). In other words driving to the rim and getting fouled is better than 40% from three or 50% from two. Plus you get the opponent in foul trouble -- perhaps fouling them out or at least causing them to be more tenative on defense AND on offense again benefits to your team

Nobody is arguing that close shots are worse than 3's. That would obviously depend on who is shooting them and how efficient they are at each.

You compared the 3's rebounded against the close shots but compare 3's vs long 2's. I think that its hard to make a case that a shot between 15-22 (arc) would have anywhere close to the value of the 3.

Of course you have exceptions with guys who can't shoot 3's but are super efficient from 2 and vice versa but as a general rule. That shot should be avoided.

The primary goal is always to get shots around the basket. The second best shot is the 3. What is the cutoff point (e.g. considered a close shot)? That is above my paygrade and there are actuaries that spend their whole day working on these things.

Nice dodge

You criticized my point about the value of midrange when done right calling it old school.

I explained the concern w long rebounds from long misses and now your talking long twos.

You like to talk the game of analytics but can't back it up

Driving and drawing fouls wins.

you are just trying to be a bit of a jerk and make an issue where there is none.

you are the one who keeps misusing midrange for close shots and getting fouled. Since when does one drive, take a midrange shot and get fouled?

Again, I said this a thousand times - the best shots are at the rim. The ones that are highly efficient and the ones that will get you to the line. No one is arguing that. Mid range jump shots especially those > ~12-15+ feet are the worst shots, obviously the longer the shot the worse it is.

If you have a point to make specifically about these shots then make it. If you agree that long 2's are not good shots but short ones can be ok then that's fine, it just depends on where you believe that line starts.

I commented on how Demar's game can be of value particularly because he drives to the rim and has a midrange game and that 3s can be overrated because you also need to consider the effect of long rebounds. You decided to attack that, saying the thinking was outdated, disproven old school thinking, and that i was wrong about long rebounds. check your post

I showed the opposite, using the studies you supposedly cherish but obviously don't understand

I have a very strong sense you don't know what the hell you're talking about. you like spouting the lingo of "analytics" thinking it makes you look smart, but my guess is a) you don't know what they mean and (b) you definitely haven't thought critically about any of them -- such as what the analytics don't tell you.

and when you're confronted with this you first dodge the issue, then attack the messenger. But whatever...I'm familiar with the personality type and shame on my for even engaging the topic with you