The NBA Offseason List - article forecasting Rox or the Spurs in the finals (charts/stats incl)

Maybe you should've specified that 'recently' being AFTER signing of Dwight. If that was the case, yes. I posted before FA, Smoove was always the option B and not part of option A because of flexibility. Doesn't that amaze you that Morey was actually interested in an inefficient player like Smoove?

Why moved the goal posts when all of your posts were about efficiency in shots or eFG%?

 

A good point sir. And I agree with you that Smith was the second option. But I have not given that scenario sufficient consideration. So I cannot give you my opinion on it.

I do not remember typing eFG% in the last week. I may be wrong.

 

fify.:grin:

 

eFG%
Effective Field Goal Percentage; the formula is (FG + 0.5 * 3P) / FGA. This statistic adjusts for the fact that a 3-point field goal is worth one more point than a 2-point field goal.

As much as I love advanced stats myself, sometimes they don't even apply to certain situation. Let's take Harden vs Michael Jordan for example from offensive side.

Both are/were #1 option on their teams. Harden is every bit as efficiency in TS% and eFG% as Jordan. He got to the FT line as many times as Jordan. Harden is actually a better 3P shooter than Jordan. The only major difference in their stats is FGA/game, which resulted in more points for Jordan.

Does that mean Harden is on the same level offensively as Jordan? Not even close. What made Jordan the GOAT and not just another Harden? His mid-range shots, shots that are so anti advanced stats.

His pull up jumpers (least efficient shots in bball) were lethal and unstoppable. When the game was on the line, that was the shot Jordan relied upon on. This is also the kind of shots that win close games (playoff). Without any player who can reliably make those shots, Rockets, most likely, will not advance far into the playoffs. My 2 cents worth.

Well done! To beat a good defensive team like Bulls, instead of taking semi-contested 3's and fully-contested rim shots, open mid-rangers become the best shots to take!

 

It wasn't Jordan's midrange game that made him elite. If that were true, then Melo should be GOAT. It was his ability to create and hit any shot. Jordan was always a high efficiency player; I guarantee you that wasn't because of his mid-range game (though I don't have the stats in front of me)

Look at LeBron's game. He takes way fewer mid-range shots than 3's or shots at rim. Why? Because if he built his offense around crappy mid-range shots he'd just be another Melo.

So the key to beating a good defensive team is to do exactly what they want you to do? Umm....

 

Why bring Melo into the conversation when his stats aren't even comparable to Harden's or Jordan's?

You couldn't be more wrong on LeBron's shot location:
LeBron shot location 2012-2013
<PRE>Value FGA

3 to <10 235
10 to <16 187
16 to <3P 349
3-pt 350</PRE>

771 shots were attempted between 3 ft to <3P
350 shots attempted at 3P.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/jamesle01/shooting/2013/

 

Mainly because I don't know why we're comparing Jordan to Harden in the first place lol. Did anyone claim that Harden was a better, or even an equal scorer? I certainly didn't.

Firstly, if you had included shots at rim you would see that what I said was not incorrect. He does take many more shots at rim or from three than he does mid range. Totaling all his shots together you will see that 62.6% of his shots are either at rim or from 3. That is above league average (slightly). Carmelo, who I bring up again because he loves midrange shots and is a good way to illustrate the difference, only takes 51.6% of his shots from those high efficiency zones. That is why he sucks.

Secondly, are you arguing the reason LeBron is a good scorer is because he takes midrange shots? I'm going to have to disagree with that premise. He's a good scorer because of his good shot selection and insane conversion rates on those shots (his TS% on shots at rim is damn near 1.000)

 

And yet OKC got to the Finals with a guy like Ibaka shooting that baseline jumper. So did San Antonio with Duncan taking a large number of shots from that range.

It's not the actual volume and scoring production you get from there; you can still heavily focus on shots at the basket and at the 3pt line. All you need is the threat of such a shot, however. It's just about keeping teams honest.

Like jtr said, it's all about having one guy with this skillset. Everything else improves once you have him: your 3pt percentages, your efficiency in the paint, your offensive rebounding, etc, once you can have a viable #2 option for Harden to kick it out to after he draws in help defense while he's penetrating. The opposing team can either rotate off the corner three man or they can rotate off the non-PnR big man. More often than not most teams would prefer the latter. So that's how you make them pay, by having a guy who can really do damage at that spot and having him draw his defender closer to him. Even a step or two is a big deal in the NBA. Everything becomes more efficient having that threat there.

 

One key difference with Ibaka is that he hits that 10-16 ft shot (which is what i think youre mainly referring to) at 54.6%. That's respectable. Duncan and LMA don't shoot anywhere near that from midrange.

As to the rest of your argument, smart defensive teams will just let you take that shot.

Take a look at Kobe's shot chart last year as compared to previous years. Odd that his effectiveness increased dramatically when he reduced the number of shots he took from a certain range...

 

You really need to understand the difference between OR and AND. Boldfaced statement is as incorrect as your original post I quoted.

Whether LeBron was a good score or not was never the subject of any discussion.

 

Very good post! Most fans are too fixed with the stars. They are important for many reasons and not the least financially for the team and the league. However, it is those stats guys that really make the difference. One likes the daughter and the other the mother, but in the end it is the cold numbers that tell the real story. Those who knows how to read the numbers have an edge that is incredibly valuable.

 

jtr, I'm actually very impressed by your analysis. I like your approach. I think stats are the basics in evaluating players true contribution. That is the best way to get real results.