Do you mean TS%, because efg doesn't include the FTs in the formula that you mention? Yes, it (3+rim+FT) is what MDA and Morey are saying. I'm showing how it even works for this team when the 3s aren't falling, because we have a great balance of 3s + rim + FTs, and system to create the space. Should we call it a Thrimft system, for short? btw: they aren't saying the higher your efg% is the more you win at all, or they wouldn't have let Dwight Howard go. They are focusing on pts per possession (which is ORtg). They are saying the focus on 3+rim+FTs creates a better ORtg and the higher the more you win. And MDA takes that theory onto the floor by tailoring an offense around spacing. Yeah, agree. We aren't set with this roster. Likewise, Toronto is 12-12 against .500....and 1-9 against GSW, SAS, CLE, LAC and HOU. They have missing pieces, too...probably in an opposite way to what we miss. GSW, SAS and CLE really stand apart on that measure of wins vs .500 teams. Most agree we aren't a legit title contender to them...although I think we can beat Pops. What I do like is MDA and Harden are putting a dent in the logic "You need 3 Superstars" to win. A perfect fit around 1 Superstar is performing better than any of us thought it would. So, MDA and Harden seem to have moved the Goal Post in for what it takes regarding supporting roster. It doesn't seem so far away, as it did in October. As usual, I'll leave the chatter about trade talk to y'all. I'm just here to have fun analyzing what's on the floor right now. And grateful Harden, MDA and Morey have moved the goal post in so significantly via great chemistry.
Nothing about the "hypothetical" I proposed was supposed to be absolutely realistic. It was based more on the thought of "how much offensive efficiency would it take to not need defense? " My theory is if you have enough dynamite and efficiency on offense, defense would not be that important at all. Which is why I picked all very good offensive players who are bad at defense. So my lineup was based on some of the best and the most efficient offensive players. In a complete hyperbolic realm. Does that team have enough offense and efficiency that defense doesn't matter to the outcome of their games.
I'm willing to bet both Toronto and SAS fans actually do say this...they are the only top teams in the bottom 10 of 3PA.. SAS fans love to blame everything on Aldridge and Parker and their 2pt games. And Toronto is the poster child for midrange game and have the league's lowest turnovers (#1), but they are 1-9 against GSW, SAS, HOU, CLE and LAC. So, fans always find a way to criticize by comparing to top teams, and their weakness would be long twos (theoretically). btw: this is more joke than me criticizing SAS and TOR. Just saying I bet their fans probably whine about long 2s. Agree. I'm a big advocate of the thinking that we are taking teams out of their style of play, and they are trying to match ours. Been speculating that since pre-season, watching opponents run with us and shoot a lot of threes, outside their style of play...and we simply do it better. Hard to measure that theory, though. I'm buying into it because it's the only thing that makes sense to me regarding how we are succeeding so much with glaring weaknesses on defense and rebounding, as you point out.
Efg is a part of TS%. I used it because a lot more people understand that than understand TS% for some reason. But in my personal analysis I like TS% because that's where you can start turnovers derive the true value of a turnover.
You should look up the 1985 paper called "The Hot Hand." It's one of the most cited papers at the Sloan Convention. It uses Basketball shooting as an example...but it isn't trying to prove basketball theory as much as just streakiness in general, across all sports and even non-sports. It says the Hot Hand is potentially a fallacy. Basically it says even sports operate similar to coin flips or other random events -- there is no such thing as giving the ball to the Hot Hand. Don't argue with me on this...I'm just pointing out that this is a very thoroughly researched and challenge paper...and beyond just theory...having a lot of data analysis behind it and people trying to challenge it nearly every year. Thus, per "The Hot Hand Fallacy", what you said in your post would be true -- the previous events won't effect our ability to hit the next three....so "Keep Shooting" Hot-hand fallacy From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The "hot-hand fallacy" (also known as the "hot hand phenomenon" or "hot hand") is the allegedly fallacious belief that a person who has experienced success with a seemingly random event has a greater chance of further success in additional attempts. The concept has been applied primarily to sports, such as basketball. While previous success at a skill-based athletic task, such as making a shot in basketball, can change the psychological behavior and subsequent success rate of a player, researchers for many years did not find evidence for a "hot hand" in practice. However, later research has questioned whether the belief is indeed a fallacy.[1][2] More recent studies using modern statistical analysis have shown that there is evidence for the "hot hand" in some sporting activities.[2]. [my comment]: that last statement "some sporting activities" is not really very conclusive. Here's what that footnote leads to: The ‘Hot Hand’ Debate Gets Flipped on Its Head A new paper shows how a simple coin toss may prove that basketball players really can get hot People have been hunting for proof of the hot hand in basketball longer than Stephen Curry has been alive. The search has lasted three decades and exhausted almost all options. But the results were usually the same. There was no evidence of the hot hand. A player who made a shot was no more likely to make his next shot. Then something strange happened this summer. Economists, psychologists and statisticians started talking about a new paper on basketball. It claimed that the hot hand really does exist. But what made it truly mind-boggling was that the authors used the simplest scientific method: coin flips.
Although you put it in a footnote, this is actually an important point. Can you rank the differentials of winning% between <=33% and >33% 3pt shooting? Good teams should have better W-L records than bad teams regardless of their 3pt shooting because they are better in other aspects. The winning% differentials would show how much a team depends its winning on 3pt shooting.
Oh my god your just so ridiculous. It is feasible actually. It happens to all be players currently playing in this time frame and all being efficient. Study philosophy sometime. None the less. I put together a team that could win a championship in my eyes with disregard to defense. I asked you the simplest of questions, and you lead to conjecture. I honestly just wish @heypartner or another logical poster would have responded and I could have an actually intelligent conversation based on theory rather than validity. It's a question and theory of %s and efficiency. I used relatable names as a basis to go by. I could have went player A shoots this % this % etc... Player B shoots this % this % etc... And so forth etc... It's a fuucking hypothetical question of offense Vs defense. Get a grip.
It's a waste of time if it's not feasible. Quit living in fantasy land. Get a grip. We're not too far away from an all-offense team now. Just replace Brewer with McDermott, and KJ/Ennis with Seth Curry and were about there. Throw in a Shabazz or Korver for Ariza and you're even further there. That's a realistic possibility. What you are suggesting isn't possible. So don't waste time analyzing it. Get a grip.
My theory is not thinking about this team but rather just offense team building philosophy. Just a random thought of trying to figure out how much offense efficiency does it take to negate defense to last in the league and not effect team production.
Although the I didnt specifically state it in my thread it should have been pretty much acknowledged that when houston shoots bad from 3 then houston is most likely to lose games. Although no one needs stats or splits to know that. It's sort of common knowledge for every team. I believe the defense is still bad, and probably was the worst seen during the Boston game, but Houston not being able to shoot at the rate they were in 2016 has become a huge problem. Capela needs to come back to playing like he was before the injury, and our guys need to get back to shooting how they were in 2016. If not then we're gonna stay bad.
I completely agree with the laws of big numbers idea overall. I don't feel like looking up any game logs right now, but I know for sure there have been a few games we have won where we shot blanks for the first half and then our guys exploded in the second half. The Nylon Calculus article below details how they determined it takes 750 3PA to get to a point where you can statistically rule out noise to determine whether a player's 3P% has truly made a step change. http://nyloncalculus.com/2014/08/29/long-take-three-point-shooting-stabilize/ OTOH, I do think there are games where some of the players have tired legs, rolled ankles, and other mental issues , where it's a lost cause. Where even if they were to take 750 3's, they still wouldn't ever make it above 33%. Those are the nights when I like to see them attacking the basket instead. I understand we need to try and send a few 3's up just for the spacing, which is why it would be nice to have a 3P assassin on the bench a la Troy Daniels.
Yes, we rely on Gordon a ton. It is bad when you rely on a player a lot and that player happens to be one of the most injury prone. Only reason we got Gordon so cheap is he is so injury prone though. It is not an easy task to conjure up a second Gordon who we can afford. I also agree with the posters who said dreaming about an unrealistic All Star team isn't going to be very insightful - but I do think where you were going with it is cool. Can you win it all going all in on offensive personnel? I don't see why you couldn't. There are always tradeoffs between offense and defense. As far as big men with range, what about Spencer Hawes? I have always liked the idea of going for guys who are stars at their roles as opposed to trying to fit stars into roles.
Your posts range from someone really serious and analytical to someone drunk/high w/e. Its like two people are using your account.
Well, I do smoke a lot tbh with you. But, it doesn't seem to have the effect that you think it does on my posting. I tend to post more serious stuff when I'm completely lit. It's the medicinal effect it has on my body chemistry, I guess. I also drink too but only on occasion , and you can tell when I'm drunk because my comments tend to be very short and very stupid even though my spelling and punctuation will usually remain the same. Anyway, just a little insight to duders habbits.
I think this has been the resuly so far. I still remember watching celtics paul pierce and antonio walker take turns jacking up ill advised shots back then. Oh and whatever happened to these duo https://www.google.co.id/amp/s/spac...is-paul-ryan-anderson-forming-connection/amp/
