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

If they "never play" then they didn't take any shots and therefore don't affect the percentage, right? And if they only played a little, then they only took a few shots and barely affect the percentage at all. If you're evaluating the TEAM, you have to look at the TEAM.

Because they shot more accurately. This really isn't as hard as you're trying to make it. Yes, the difference is small, and I wouldn't argue with you if you said the teams were basically equivalent.

But to look at a LOWER shooting percentage and conclude that it means HOU is BETTER is somewhere in the gray area between wishful thinking and outright stupid.

 

5 shots is a lot less than 17 shots and think that particular playoff stay is meaningless.

But 1200 more shots is not a insignificant difference and yes it definitely means of the margin is only .3% there higher volume team is better.

 

Actually I agree with it being a small sample size and it does not really mean anything.

But they don't factor in sample size when claiming OKC is a better shooting team than Houston.

Play ball is using total roster percentages that still only gives OKC a .3% advantage over Houston.

Totally ignoring that Houston shot over a 1,000 more 3's than OKC.

This entire discussion has been about will Russ benefit from better spacing and shooting with Houston, their entire argument has been that somehow OKC had better shooting than Houston.



That's categorically untrue.

I understand sample size I was just calling out the hypocrisy of their argument.

I appreciate you having a reasonable discussion on the matter.

 

That's not how statistics work.

All the difference in attempts means is that the HOU number is more indicative of their actual ability. The OKC number would have somewhat higher variability - i.e. their percentage is not quite as reliable an indicator of their skill as HOU's is, but it's just as likely UNDERRATING their ability as overrating.

 

Dude you are not even trying to make sense anymore.

And you have the audacity to say something is stupid.

Yet your entire argument comes down to .3% on a 1000 fewer shots.

I'm out.

 

WOW!

 

At least they reply to you....

 

We have Shooters really? I thought we needed pure shooters not missing like the game 7 against gsw.

 

Just imagine if we had OKC's instead...

 

sample size matters 100% of the time. But he still only shot 32% which is terrible. Those other guys just had even more terrible shooting in the playoffs. Because, you know, small sample size. It happens. Shooters can be streaky. Think of the whole months at time Gordon was either cold as ice or absolutely on fire.

 

I agree.

 

I don't read the article as being quite as negative as most others seem to. Westbrook's shooting numbers are ugly, no doubt. We all knew that. I think he did a good job of pointing out the ways it he can still fit and be successful with the Rockets. I actually came out of it feeling more encouraged.

 

Lol good luck man. Maybe crack a statistics textbook before you try to talk numbers with the grownups again.

 

Says the guy who thinks 1000 more shots is insignificant.thinks

LOL.

 

This argument is wild.

Still not following how more attempts makes you more accurate.

More attempts would suggest an offense that’s clearly looking for those shots not an offense with more accurate shooters.

Does the argument change if it were free throw percentage?

Some guys are better at getting to the line than others. Doesn’t mean the guy who shoots 85% on 10 attempts per game is a more accurate free throw shooter than a 90% shooter on 5 attempts per game.

 

I believe that the argument is that more shots gives a more accurate representation of overall skill/value or whatever, not that more more shots at a lover percentage is more accurate.

But I don't want to get involved. I was trying to get this thing back on track.

 

That was my argument, yes.

Biff seems to think shooting more at less accuracy means you’re more accurate lol.

 

Starter vs bench player

Melo belonged in the bench but wanted to start

 

I agree. Definitely different scenarios. But at least the article points out that the two can coexist. And coexist with a high level of success. It will just take a little tweaking.

 

player A makes 80 threes (less than 1 made 3 a game) in a season at 37.3% rate

Vs a player B who makes 250 threes (more than 3 made 3s a game) in a season at 37.0% rate

Whos a better proven 3 pt shooter of the two?