Page 23 of 36 FirstFirst ... 1319202122232425262733 ... LastLast
Results 551 to 575 of 889

Thread: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

  1. #551
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    19,035

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by CableKC View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    4 ) People think that Lance has a skillset that Granger does not possess ( creating offense for others ) where Lance can utilize that skillset to greatly bolster the offensive effectiveness of the 2nd Unit ( something that I do not think that Granger would be very good at doing ) while playing enough minutes with the Starters to Finish/Close games and thus improving the overall effectiveness of the Team while reducing any heavy reliance on the remaining GH/PG/West/Hibbert ( one of the problems that we had last year ).
    I really wish that you posted more in this thread. I admire your eloquence.
    Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
    Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

    Panopticon

    -------------

    CJ Watson - 20 points on 6/10 shooting!

    13/4/2014

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Nuntius For This Useful Post:


  3. #552
    Member aamcguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    West Lafayette
    Age
    23
    Posts
    2,534

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by mattie View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Here, since some folks are getting wrapped around the axle a little bit when it comes to TS% versus FG%, I'll try to make it simple as possible.

    Let's suppose if you could make a shot from 3 quarters of the court you get 25 points right? Stupid, but let's say this was a possibility?? Ok. Stay with me.

    Let's say Danny Granger decides he's going to take 10 three quarter shots per game. He makes only ONE shot per game. He gets 25 points. HIS FG% is 10 percent. AWFUL FG percentage right? But he scored 25 points!

    Now. His TS% would be. Well, really high.

    Now MJ shoots 10 shots as well, but all 2 point shots. He makes 5, allowing him to shoot a beautiful 50% from the field. He scores 10 points.

    Now, with Danny's 9 misses per game, he could have gotten the ball back on offensive rebounds. They could have a put back on every attempt. In theory.

    Mean while, MJ could only get an offensive rebound on 5 of HIS misses right?

    So in the scenario, one player scored more points, on LESS makes, and in theory could have given the opposing team LESS opportunities to score. Does this make sense???

    Scoring efficiency is MORE important than your actual field goal percentage. The fact that you made less shots, or had more misses is meaningless if you score more points. Does that make sense???

    I realize this is the most ridiculous scenario ever, but I use it to explain why TS% matters, and just because a player shoots more three's doesn't mean he's hurting his team because he has more total misses.
    That's a very good argument for effective FG%. TS% also incorporates free throws, which would be why high volume-low percentage free throw shooting all time great centers of this league post bad TS%. Neither reward "high volume, low percentage scorers" though. They do, however, account for the fact that some shots get you more points than others.

    Additionally, depending on your offensive scheme three point misses are either positive or negative. Three point shots are both offensively rebounded at a higher rate than other shots and more likely to result in fast break shots for the defensive squad. However, with a good offensive rebounding + transition defense scheme you can eliminate most of the would-be fast breaks. So with a good scheme in place, as long as you are shooting in the .34+ range for 3 point shooting they are quality shots.

    Basically, on good defensive teams 3 point shot misses are in the neutral-positive range while on bad defensive teams 3 point shot misses are devastating.

    I would disagree that FG% is useless though. If you're shooting 20% from the field as a whole, but shooting 45% from the 3 pt line, it's pretty clear that you're taking a lot of shots that you shouldn't be taking. This would be an extreme example of a high volume shooter gone wrong. There are high volume shooters, however, that are actually a large net positive offensively despite shooting a poorer percentage than your teammates. Danny was one of these "good" high volume shooters, at least in the last season he played. It's why I'm personally excited to see him integrated with the team again: with Paul George being our volume shooter and averaging in the upper 40 percents, Danny doesn't have to be a volume shooter anymore. He can shoot high quality shots and pass the rock on when he's well covered.

  4. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to aamcguy For This Useful Post:


  5. #553
    Member CableKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA ( 1123, 6536, 5321 )
    Age
    41
    Posts
    24,610

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by mattie View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Now on another completely different note, just to add some common sense to this thread for once, if Lance is somehow able to continue to play like this all season obviously he'll have proven himself at minimum equal to Danny Granger.
    Both bring different skillsets to the table....but I think that it's a foregone conclusion, given all of the factors that are now affecting Granger ( valid injury concerns and lack of any real playing time over the last 1.5 seasons ), that Lance is already "on par" with Granger....but more than likely considered the "better" player.

    Quote Originally Posted by mattie View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    While I completely understand "fit" that some folks are arguing for, for me I'm always about talent. I'd rather the better player start, so if Lance is still playing like this in a month when Granger is finally completely back in the swing of things, I would want him to keep the job. To be clear, tho, I understand why folks would STILL want Granger in the lineup as he's a fantastic shooter, and shooting is the need most lacking in the starting lineup. Just an opinion tho- I go for talent versus fit.
    I do have my reasoning for why I want Lance to be a "Super Sub" as opposed to one of the "Starters....but I will admit that if Granger ISN'T able to stay on the court and is perpetually in and out of the lineup ( thus creating instability in the Starting Lineup ) as the season progresses, then I can TOTALLY see Vogel sticking with Lance in the Starting Lineup and pushing Granger to the 6th Man role ( when he is healthy enough to play ) to cause less disruption in the rotations. I may not agree with such a move....but I understand that one of the reasons why one would want Lance to be the Starter is a need to create consistency in the lineup when it comes to chemistry/familiarity with each other.

    However, until that happens....I will stick with my "Super-Sub" line of reasoning for why I would want Lance to come off the bench while pushing Granger to the Starting lineup as the 4th/5th Scoring Option on the floor waiting for scoring opportunities created by GH/PG/West/Hibbert.

    To all of the "Start Lance" supporters,

    I understand why you would want Lance to Start and to have Granger pushed to the bench...your line of thought isn't unreasonable by any means. But I ( and a few others ) don't think that "Making Lance a Super-Sub" is completely unreasonable as well either. IMHO, there are valid reasons to do both.....where I do not see either option being "right or wrong" but which option maybe the "Better Option over the other". Either moves would improve the Team in different ways and in differing degrees....how much and in what ways is all a matter of opinion ( at least for now ).

    What am I trying to say here? I'm just tying to say that we can agree to disagree.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    This is David West, he is the Honey Badger, West just doesn't give a *****....he's pretty bad *ss cuz he has no regard for any other Player or Team whatsoever.

  6. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to CableKC For This Useful Post:


  7. #554
    Member CableKC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA ( 1123, 6536, 5321 )
    Age
    41
    Posts
    24,610

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nuntius View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I really wish that you posted more in this thread. I admire your eloquence.
    I have been posting more in this thread.....I just have a tendency to write very long run-on sentences.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    This is David West, he is the Honey Badger, West just doesn't give a *****....he's pretty bad *ss cuz he has no regard for any other Player or Team whatsoever.

  8. #555
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    19,035

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by CableKC View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I have been posting more in this thread.....I just have a tendency to write very long run-on sentences.
    Eh, I do that a lot too. Writing a point by point list and then explaining the conclusion like you did in the post I quoted is a great way to present your argument. So, thanks for the tip
    Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
    Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

    Panopticon

    -------------

    CJ Watson - 20 points on 6/10 shooting!

    13/4/2014

  9. #556
    George Hill Apologist mattie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Age
    28
    Posts
    2,520

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by aamcguy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    That's a very good argument for effective FG%. TS% also incorporates free throws, which would be why high volume-low percentage free throw shooting all time great centers of this league post bad TS%. Neither reward "high volume, low percentage scorers" though. They do, however, account for the fact that some shots get you more points than others.

    Additionally, depending on your offensive scheme three point misses are either positive or negative. Three point shots are both offensively rebounded at a higher rate than other shots and more likely to result in fast break shots for the defensive squad. However, with a good offensive rebounding + transition defense scheme you can eliminate most of the would-be fast breaks. So with a good scheme in place, as long as you are shooting in the .34+ range for 3 point shooting they are quality shots.

    Basically, on good defensive teams 3 point shot misses are in the neutral-positive range while on bad defensive teams 3 point shot misses are devastating.

    I would disagree that FG% is useless though. If you're shooting 20% from the field as a whole, but shooting 45% from the 3 pt line, it's pretty clear that you're taking a lot of shots that you shouldn't be taking. This would be an extreme example of a high volume shooter gone wrong. There are high volume shooters, however, that are actually a large net positive offensively despite shooting a poorer percentage than your teammates. Danny was one of these "good" high volume shooters, at least in the last season he played. It's why I'm personally excited to see him integrated with the team again: with Paul George being our volume shooter and averaging in the upper 40 percents, Danny doesn't have to be a volume shooter anymore. He can shoot high quality shots and pass the rock on when he's well covered.
    I will explain TS% vs eFG% next when they're ready. At the moment I had to explain the importance of three's as Sollozo was confused, and thought good three point shooters actually HURT teams.

    Also, if you're shooting 20% field goals, 45% from three, and shooting 30 free throw attempts per game, you're probably scoring really efficiently. FG% tells us little, to nothing. Once again, you always look at TS% to see if they're scoring efficiently. You look at eFG% to see if they're shooting efficiently. End o' story.
    Find me on the internets @mattiecolin

    Read it and weep:

    When George Hill is above 15% usage we won 73.5% of games. Below 15% usage we won 61.9%

  10. #557
    Member Sollozzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    16,736

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by mattie View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I will explain TS% vs eFG% next when they're ready. At the moment I had to explain the importance of three's as Sollozo was confused, and thought good three point shooters actually HURT teams.

    LOL I never said anything of the sort.

    I don't place the same value on these obscure statistics of some of you, but that doesn't mean I think that good three point shooters "hurt" teams. Yeah, I've spent the last decade here complaining that Reggie's three point shooting hurt the Pacers.......

  11. #558
    George Hill Apologist mattie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Age
    28
    Posts
    2,520

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sollozzo View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    LOL I never said anything of the sort.

    I don't place the same value on these obscure statistics of some of you, but that doesn't mean I think that good three point shooters "hurt" teams. Yeah, I've spent the last decade here complaining that Reggie's three point shooting hurt the Pacers.......
    So TS% is obscure now?
    Find me on the internets @mattiecolin

    Read it and weep:

    When George Hill is above 15% usage we won 73.5% of games. Below 15% usage we won 61.9%

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to mattie For This Useful Post:


  13. #559
    George Hill Apologist mattie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Age
    28
    Posts
    2,520

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Over the last two pages you still have a lot of questions to answer. I dumbed it down for you. Everyone has explained in detail the simple information you were having trouble understanding... .

    I know you have to finally get it after all that was said. I would either clarify yourself, or if you're still confused I have no need to continue any sort of discussion with you in this thread. =)
    Find me on the internets @mattiecolin

    Read it and weep:

    When George Hill is above 15% usage we won 73.5% of games. Below 15% usage we won 61.9%

  14. #560
    Member Sollozzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    16,736

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by mattie View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    So TS% is obscure now?

    Mainstream sites like ESPN and sportsline don't have it on their player pages. You have to go to an advanced website like basketballreference to find it. So yes, by definition it is obscure. But obscure doesn't mean unimportant.

  15. #561
    George Hill Apologist mattie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Age
    28
    Posts
    2,520

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sollozzo View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Mainstream sites like ESPN and sportsline don't have it on their player pages. You have to go to an advanced website like basketballreference to find it. So yes, by definition it is obscure. But obscure doesn't mean unimportant.
    ESPN references TS% all the time.

    NBA.com has TS% all over the place. In fact, it is nearly impossible to read any NBA dedicated website without a reference to the statistic. So no it's not obscure.

    But. Even if it was. What's the point? What are you arguing? Are simply trying to avoid admitting that you were wrong earlier? Or are you still confused?
    Find me on the internets @mattiecolin

    Read it and weep:

    When George Hill is above 15% usage we won 73.5% of games. Below 15% usage we won 61.9%

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to mattie For This Useful Post:


  17. #562
    George Hill Apologist mattie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Age
    28
    Posts
    2,520

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sollozzo View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    LOL I never said anything of the sort.

    I don't place the same value on these obscure statistics of some of you, but that doesn't mean I think that good three point shooters "hurt" teams. Yeah, I've spent the last decade here complaining that Reggie's three point shooting hurt the Pacers.......
    You did say TS% is a statistic that gives an advantage to "three point chuckers", while doesn't account for pure volume scorers. You were completely wrong about that.
    Find me on the internets @mattiecolin

    Read it and weep:

    When George Hill is above 15% usage we won 73.5% of games. Below 15% usage we won 61.9%

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to mattie For This Useful Post:


  19. #563
    Member Sollozzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    16,736

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by mattie View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You did say TS% is a statistic that gives an advantage to "three point chuckers", while doesn't account for pure volume scorers. You were completely wrong about that.
    Yes, I was wrong that TS% gives advantage to three point chuckers. It's eFG% that gives an advantage to three point chuckers.

    But why does TS% weight a free throw attempt at 0.44? What is the justification for that?

  20. #564
    George Hill Apologist mattie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Age
    28
    Posts
    2,520

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sollozzo View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    These stats allow chuckers who jack up a lot of shots and shoot low FG% to compensate. They don't take into account that missed shots create rebounding opportunities where the other team gets the ball. OK, so Jordan and Granger have the same "TS". I refuse to admit that means Granger was just as "efficient" as 45. Granger shot 6% less than Jordan in real life, which means that his misses created more opportunities for a defense to rebound the ball and score.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sollozzo View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Rickey Pierce and Kyle Korver are better than Jordan on this list.

    This list is a way to artificially inflate three point chuckers.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sollozzo View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Lebron is 57th on the list. Jordan is 71st. Those are two of the top 10 players in NBA history. The list is a complete joke.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sollozzo View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Let me guess, he was also more efficient than Michael Jordan......

    Also, stop trying to change your comments, like you just trying to say the statistic was "obscure." You tried to argue it was a joke.
    Find me on the internets @mattiecolin

    Read it and weep:

    When George Hill is above 15% usage we won 73.5% of games. Below 15% usage we won 61.9%

  21. #565
    George Hill Apologist mattie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Age
    28
    Posts
    2,520

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sollozzo View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Yes, I was wrong that TS% gives advantage to three point chuckers. It's eFG% that gives an advantage to three point chuckers.

    But why does TS% weight a free throw attempt at 0.44? What is the justification for that?
    eFG% simply measures how well a player is shooting from the field. period. It doesn't give an "advantage" to three point chuckers.


    TS% has to take in account and 1's and the like as well. Don't ask my why, but it ends up being worth exactly that. A little confusing? Sure. But it works.
    Find me on the internets @mattiecolin

    Read it and weep:

    When George Hill is above 15% usage we won 73.5% of games. Below 15% usage we won 61.9%

  22. The Following User Says Thank You to mattie For This Useful Post:


  23. #566
    Artificial Intelligence wintermute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,266

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by mattie View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    TS% has to take in account and 1's and the like as well. Don't ask my why, but it ends up being worth exactly that. A little confusing? Sure. But it works.
    0.44 is the average number of free throw attempts that end a possession. That number would be 0.5 if we're only counting regular free throws (since FTA's would come in pairs and only one would actually end a possession). But then there are "and 1"s and technical free throws and 3 FTAs for a fouled 3pt attempt. So 0.44 is the approximation someone came up with in the old days.

    It's true though that 0.44 is found to be "close enough". But there are more accurate ways to count it if one is so inclined.

    Btw, mattie, I'm not sure you're doing a good job making the case for advanced statistics. TS% definitely is not the end all for efficiency. aamcguy makes arguments for eFG% and FG%, and I might mention PPS as well. But if the topic is still Granger, I'm pretty sure he's ranked as an efficient player by most metrics.

  24. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to wintermute For This Useful Post:


  25. #567

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sollozzo View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

    But why does TS% weight a free throw attempt at 0.44? What is the justification for that?
    As Mattie said, they are trying to adjust for the fact that free throws don't correspond with possessions like shots do. You have technical free throws that aren't a possession at all. You have and 1's where you already have an attempted shot on the possession. You have situations where you have 2 and sometimes 3 free throws. The .44 is gathered from past NBA data as the right coefficient to account for those factors.

  26. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Cubs231721 For This Useful Post:


  27. #568
    George Hill Apologist mattie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Age
    28
    Posts
    2,520

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by wintermute View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    0.44 is the average number of free throw attempts that end a possession. That number would be 0.5 if we're only counting regular free throws (since FTA's would come in pairs and only one would actually end a possession). But then there are "and 1"s and technical free throws and 3 FTAs for a fouled 3pt attempt. So 0.44 is the approximation someone came up with in the old days.

    It's true though that 0.44 is found to be "close enough". But there are more accurate ways to count it if one is so inclined.

    Btw, mattie, I'm not sure you're doing a good job making the case for advanced statistics. TS% definitely is not the end all for efficiency. aamcguy makes arguments for eFG% and FG%, and I might mention PPS as well. But if the topic is still Granger, I'm pretty sure he's ranked as an efficient player by most metrics.
    Of course it's not. But I refuse to go beyond TS% at the moment, if someone is struggling to understand such a simple statistic.

    Edit- Of course PPP is important, but eFG% as stated early measures actual shooting from the field yet doesn't tell us how efficient a player is at all. I a player can shoot poorly yet be an efficient scorer, or a player can shoot great from the field and be an inefficient scorer.
    Last edited by mattie; 11-04-2013 at 09:16 AM.
    Find me on the internets @mattiecolin

    Read it and weep:

    When George Hill is above 15% usage we won 73.5% of games. Below 15% usage we won 61.9%

  28. #569
    Member Sollozzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    16,736

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by mattie View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    eFG% simply measures how well a player is shooting from the field. period. It doesn't give an "advantage" to three point chuckers.


    TS% has to take in account and 1's and the like as well. Don't ask my why, but it ends up being worth exactly that. A little confusing? Sure. But it works.
    I think that it gives an advantage to chuckers. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

    Here is why I'm not a huge fan of eFG%:

    Player A shoots 6-12 from the field. He shoots 0 threes and scores 12 points. That is an eFG% of 50% since there are no threes.

    Player B shoots 4-12 from the field. All 4 of his made shots are threes, so he also scores 12 points. That is also an eFG% of 50% (4+ (0.5 x 4)/12.


    So it's true that both of these players got the same amount of points out of 12 shots. I suppose that I was guilty of of some hyperbole when I tried to completely write off these statistics. That being said, Player B missed 8 shots while Player A only missed 4. Those 4 extra misses from Player B mean something right? Those 4 misses could lead to empty possessions and fastbreak rebounds for the other team. Maybe the possession would have been better utilized if Player B would have passed it more to Player A for a higher percentage shot?

    Like I said, I think that this stat bails out chuckers.

  29. #570
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Age
    33
    Posts
    28,142

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicks View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I spent so much time pushing back with him that it brought out my dark side something fierce, and I'm not anxious to do it again
    OK Spider-Man ...... what kind of person talks like that?
    Last edited by vnzla81; 11-04-2013 at 09:46 AM.

  30. #571
    George Hill Apologist mattie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Age
    28
    Posts
    2,520

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sollozzo View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I think that it gives an advantage to chuckers. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

    Here is why I'm not a huge fan of eFG%:

    Player A shoots 6-12 from the field. He shoots 0 threes and scores 12 points. That is an eFG% of 50% since there are no threes.

    Player B shoots 4-12 from the field. All 4 of his made shots are threes, so he also scores 12 points. That is also an eFG% of 50% (4+ (0.5 x 4)/12.


    So it's true that both of these players got the same amount of points out of 12 shots. I suppose that I was guilty of of some hyperbole when I tried to completely write off these statistics. That being said, Player B missed 8 shots while Player A only missed 4. Those 4 extra misses from Player B mean something right? Those 4 misses could lead to empty possessions and fastbreak rebounds for the other team. Maybe the possession would have been better utilized if Player B would have passed it more to Player A for a higher percentage shot?

    Like I said, I think that this stat bails out chuckers.
    You tried using that earlier. I went into a long dumbed down explanation as to why if you had more misses and the same amount of points that would actually be an ADVANTAGE for the shooter.

    I realize you're attempting in any way possible to delegitimize these statistics but it is not going to work. I'm sorry.
    Find me on the internets @mattiecolin

    Read it and weep:

    When George Hill is above 15% usage we won 73.5% of games. Below 15% usage we won 61.9%

  31. #572
    George Hill Apologist mattie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Age
    28
    Posts
    2,520

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Also, this is not a matter of opinion. It's a measurement.
    Find me on the internets @mattiecolin

    Read it and weep:

    When George Hill is above 15% usage we won 73.5% of games. Below 15% usage we won 61.9%

  32. #573
    Member Sollozzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    16,736

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by mattie View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    You tried using that earlier. I went into a long dumbed down explanation as to why if you had more misses and the same amount of points that would actually be an ADVANTAGE for the shooter.

    I realize you're attempting in any way possible to delegitimize these statistics but it is not going to work. I'm sorry.
    If your points are so airtight, then why do you have to lob lame condesecending insults at every turn? Seems like you wouldn't need those insults if you had an airtight case.

    More misses and the same amount of points might be better for the shooter's statistics, but it might not be better for the team.

  33. #574
    George Hill Apologist mattie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Age
    28
    Posts
    2,520

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by vnzla81 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    OK Spider-Man ...... what kind of person talks like that?
    You contradict yourself, lie, ********, take sentences out of context, mis-represent everyone just to "win" a debate. Which you never have. You just refuse to admit you've lost nearly ever discussion by proving you're incapable of having an honest debate.

    What kind of person wastes their time constantly lying in nearly every post they make?

    Also, what is your motivation?
    Find me on the internets @mattiecolin

    Read it and weep:

    When George Hill is above 15% usage we won 73.5% of games. Below 15% usage we won 61.9%

  34. #575
    George Hill Apologist mattie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Age
    28
    Posts
    2,520

    Default Re: Four big IF's about Lance Stephenson.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sollozzo View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    If your points are so airtight, then why do you have to lob lame condesecending insults at every turn? Seems like you wouldn't need those insults if you had an airtight case.

    More misses and the same amount of points might be better for the shooter's statistics, but it might not be better for the team.
    Holy ****. Pay attention. It would be WORSE for the shooter (because he has a lower shooting percentage), but theoretically better for the TEAM (more chances to rebound the ball versus guaranteeing loss of possession because of a make)! I'm just pointing holes in your completely weak argument. You will not delegitimize the statistic by repeating the same dumb logic over and over.

    Stop. Just stop.
    Last edited by mattie; 11-04-2013 at 10:15 AM.
    Find me on the internets @mattiecolin

    Read it and weep:

    When George Hill is above 15% usage we won 73.5% of games. Below 15% usage we won 61.9%

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •