[Ringer] 30 Facts that Will Make or Break the Harden-Westbrook Rockets

What a stupid graphic.

He took 34 threes TOTAL in the playoffs and shot 32% (terrible). It's cool to compare him to a bunch of other small sample sizes and celebrate how his terrible number was better than terrible numbers though I guess.

 

LOL on how many attempts?

 

What numbers did I manipulate?

The fact remains that Russ will be playing with more above average 3 point shooters than he did in OKC.

That's in both in percentage and volume.

He will be playing with a better shooting team in Houston that's a undeniable fact.

 

So now you care about attempts?

 

So now attempts matter.

You guys are unbelievable.

 

You ignored significant portions of both teams and focused only on the shooters who fit your narrative. You listed, what, FOUR members of each team and said it conclusively shows HOU is better? What about all the other members of each team??

As I've pointed out like eight times but you refuse to understand, if you look at ALL the shooters, OKC's performed with higher accuracy last year. OKC (minus Russ) shot a higher percentage than HOU.

 

LOL @pippendagimp today's episode was pretty good

who knew incredibly basic concepts could literally be like......

 

On significantly less volume.... What happens when you take Paul George and Russ out? The volume dramatically decreases and the percentage isn't as good. Paul George shot at an elite level and career high on volume playing next to Russ, how the hell did he achieve that playing next to Russ?

All you are doing is playing with statistics to get your desired result. Where are you taking into account that Houston has not only volume 3 pt shooters but two volume 3 point shooters who shot a few feet back from the line? Who on OKC could shoot like that?

 

After, what, 11 seasons of being a mediocre (or worse) three point shooter, do you think performing slightly better for five games suddenly means he’s a good shooter??

 

LOL..... OKC had only 4 players attempt more than 4 3PA...... Rockets had double at 8.... I can see why you want to use the entire roster.....

The Rockets roster is geared towards 3 pointing more so than the OKC thunder..... I'm sorry again but you are wrong.

 

All that proves is that you can average a good % when you don't take many shots due to variability ..... cough OKC rooster cough cough....

I sure as hell don't want Russ taking many 3s, I want him to be the elite distributor he's been. If he can get these results out of that OKC roster.... imagine what he can do with a roster geared towards what he does best?

 

Bottomline, Rockets roster > OKC roster. All you nerds need to look at more than narrowly defined numbers.

 

Dude, you are unbelievable. In the posts you quoted, attempts don't matter here for the purpose of volume, they matter for the purpose of sample size. Do you really not understand the difference?

 

What significant portion did I ignore?

I gave the percentages for all of the major rotation players on both teams.

I have you the percentages for all of OKC'S top shooters.

The Rockets had more above average shooters with a higher volume of shots than OKC.


You sure are making a lot of assertions without posting actual stats.

 

The numbers don't even back up what they are saying.

 

What?


Attempts don't matter when it comes to spacing?

What does sample size have to do with anything?

So could your address the fact that Houston had more shooters who shot a better percentage than OKC did.

What exactly matters here to you?

 

You ignored like half of both rosters. I've pointed that out like 3x - are you even reading what I post?
You're looking only at individual stats rather than team, then using those individual numbers as "proof" of a team comparison. That's badly flawed logic.

I posted the stats before, but here you go again:
- As a team, OKC shot 932 of 2677 on threes (34.8%). If you remove Russ's ugly 29%(119 of 411), the rest of the team shot 813 of 2266 (35.9%).
- Houston shot 35.6% as a team. And that might drop a little if you subtract CP3's 35.8%, but it's close enough to the team number that it won't move the needle much.
- 35.9% > 35.6%. Yes, the difference is small, but it's still advantage OKC.

 

Ok, time for basic statistics and logic:
- Sample size matters when judging whether results are truly indicative of anything. If I go outside and hit four of five three pointers, there's a decent chance I got a couple of lucky bounces or just happened to be on a hot streak that day. It really doesn't mean much if you're trying to figure out whether or not I'm a good shooter. If I go outside and hit, say, 800 of 1000 three pointers, it's pretty damn clear I'm a good shooter.
- Earlier you raised the point of volume mattering in judging whether a team can shoot. If the sample size was 1000 to 5 like I quoted, then yes, you'd probably have a point. But the comparison you're making is between two teams who shot similar percentages on 4000 vs 2800 shots or something like that. The 4000 sample size is slightly more indicative of that team's shooting percentage being "real", but the 2800 isn't far behind. And the 4000 attempts certainly don't mean that the team hoisting more shots is better.

See the difference?

 

Half the roster?

If those players did not play why would include them.

Name the players you feel should be part of this discussion since I am leaving out half the roster?

Why in the world would you use the entire team percentage when half of those guys never play?

Talk about flawed logic.

And even then you are talking about .3% on over a 1000 fewer attempts.

How can any logical person equate that to OKC being a better shooting team?

 

The people who you quoted, that both brought up the number of attempts, were both talking about sample size. You quoted both of them with you "oh so NOW attempts matter" routine, in an attempt to call out their inconsistency. Your implication was that earlier they didn't care about volume, but now they totally care about volume! That's not the case. They were not interested in the number of attempts as a measure of volume, or to make any kind of judgement on if/why/how that volume matters, or whatever. They were asking "how many attempts" to highlight the fact that the sample size was too low to draw any meaningful conclusions.