We've often talked in here about how Rudy plays the percentages. We've also complained frequently about his strategy of post men and 3-point shooters. Now the math whizzes have vindicated that strategy. This is from the Jan. 16 New York Times: "In the NFL this season, two-point attempts worked 37 percent of the time. So the expected value of a two-point try was 0.74, or 74 one-hundredths of a point: 0.37 (the success rate) times 2 (the value of a successful attempt). The expected value of an extra point, by contrast, was about 0.94, since the kicks are good about 94 percent of the time and a successful kick is worth one point. The statistical difference is significant, and it really does cause teams to lose games." "A good contrast to the two-point conversion is basketball's three-point shot, which turns out to be a worthy risk, all else being equal. Most pro teams make the long-distance shot about one-third of the time, giving it an expected value of about 1 (.33 x 3). Regular, two-point shots go in the basket about 45 percent of the time, for an expected value of .9 (.45 x 2)." Memo to Cuttino Mobley: Next time you're planning to jack one up, step back.
at .31% for 3 point percentage Mobley is doing the same amount of damage as a player shooting 47% from two point land. [This message has been edited by Achebe (edited January 22, 2000).]
Uh, no. Perfect example of how statistics can lie. Player A comes to you and says, "I'm a shooting guard that only shoots 3's and can hit 31% from 3pt land". Player B comes to you and says, "I'm a shooting guard that can only shoot 2's and hit 47% of them". Who do you want? The statistical "return on investment", close to 1 in both cases, makes you think they're both equivalent as you stated, but realistically... get real... give me the shooting guard that's hitting 47%. Also, you see a lot more fouls on 2 point shots than you do on 3 point shots. To accurately gauge the value of the 2 point shots, you better also include those fouls he gets either attempting the shot and missing or attempting the shot and making it. Then you will have the true "damage" of a 2-pointer vs. a 3-pointer. Hey wait... aren't you one of those Mobley apologists?! Should've known... ------------------ trade him.
Don't let your defense of Mobley get in the way of comprehension, heypartner. Where did I say anything about Mobley being bad? Your love for your shooter is showing. All I stated was that the statistical multiplication of direct reward by % success in this case does not necessarily translate to a 1-to-1 relationship. So you can't just say someone that's a 31% 3pt shooter "equates" to a 47% 2pt shooter. Mathematically, in a "risk vs. reward" analysis, yes, realistically no. Nowhere did I say Mobley doesn't get to the line. Nowhere did I say anything about Steve Francis. Nowhere did I label Mobley a 3pt specialist like Kenny Smith. Mobley sucks at the 3pt shot. I wouldn't give him that honor... (uh, oh, he's fumin' now) So next time... please read and don't let emotions cloud your response. ------------------ trade him. [This message has been edited by Dr of Dunk (edited January 23, 2000).]
Just Waive him, he is crap and there is no hope, get rid of his lame can't do anything on the court arse right now. WAIVE HIM NOW
LOL!!!! I thought I was going to laugh my "arse" off with that one. Yes, waive him and get nothing in return!! PROVE A POINT TO OTHERS OF HIS ILK! ------------------ trade him.
Yeah, where does Mobley get off thinking 17 points against the Nuggets is good enough, just save the pain and Cut him now, plus the posts on bbs will become less picky and more intelligent, or just start bagging out Rudy again. CUT CAT NOW
As though on cue, the Rockets illustrate the 3-point theory tonight: 50% 3-point shooting (55% until the last 5 minutes) blew away the Heat. Even more amazing: 100% free-throw shooting. This has to be the first perfect game for the Rockets from the line this season.
Damn! The Heat only fouled sent Mobley to the line once tonight. They weren't fouling him, and he hit over 50%. I guess we're stuck with him for a little while longer. Now will NEVER get another low draft pick!
As stated earlier this week, IMO, the key to Mobley ? Dream in the middle. i.e., Real post threat allows Mobley to set for the 3. When he hits em, it's all over. That opens up the lane for his cuts, cause they they've GOT to get out on him. Plus, he doesn't stand around dribbling so much. He's a natural scorer when under control.
remember how everyone was concerned about the 3 point prowess of this team earlier? (well... walt was stinkin' the place up, but anyway)... we shot 3s tonight at 48%, or the same as having a player shoot 72.5% from 2 point land dr. not bad. not bad at all.
Uh no. Perfect example of how pigeon-holing can lie. Mobley has made 160 FTs to our wondrous Steve's 161 FT. Don't label him a 3pt-shooter like he's Kenny Smith or something!! ----------------- I don't want to be a Mobley Apologist; I want to be speechless in awe of great performances. [This message has been edited by heypartner (edited January 23, 2000).]
While I was watching the game, and they started hitting just about everything from behind the arc, the first thing I thought about was this thread. ------------------ I have a dream.........his name's Hakeem.
DoD... hey man. we're all having fun here. toss me your jabs. Let's stop the Mobley duel though. I've moved on to studying the wrinkles of our Flex motion offense and the subtle problems with our defense. I've made my point about Mobley. --------------------------------- Don't be a Mobley apologist. Be speechless in awe.
heypartner, It's cool. I'm just ribbing you, achebe, and Smeggy because you guys have taken up the Holy Mobley Grail in saying he should stick. Of course I don't really want to up and get rid of the guy. He's good-to-very good. All I'm saying is that if his shot selection would ever improve, he'd be a dynamite threat... yes, a Francis, jr. at the off-guard. Anyway... moving on. ------------------ trade him.
DoD, I know you're ribbing me. I knew that from our fun game chat a few back. Did you notice I was ribbing you with the duplication of sentences. just didn't use the smiley face. Speaking of smiley faces...you don't have to use it with me...I read this chat with my own smiley face on. Don't bother softening your words. And that goes for anyone else who thinks they need to send a smiley face my way when poking me. ------------------------------------------ Don't be a Mobley Apologist, be speechless in awe
