yes i'm sure by end of the season parsons will finish at 51.8% shooting... you fools are splitting hair.
This is what I said: FG%, as a stat itself, is absolutely useless In your scenario, would you rather have a player that shoots 5-10 for the field and finishes with 10 points, or a player that shoots 2-10 for the field and finishes with 16 points? I'll take the latter. There is a difference between a player that shoots 20% and a player that shoots 50%. What exactly that difference is, I have no idea... which is the point. As for the hack-a's... that's a limited strategy that only works on the worst free throw shooters in unique situations. You'll note that the second Dwight (or anyone) starts hitting 50% on the free throws and the other team fails to score a couple times, the hack-a either stops, or doesn't matter. Which is the point. The best team in the league on a points per possession basis is Portland at the moment, currently scoring 1.09 points per possession. That equates effectively to a 55% free throw percentage. The Rockets are at 1.07 - about 53.5% FT% equivalent. Dwight is currently shooting 55.5% from the line. The bet is that you add some pressure, you keep sending them back to the line AND that during the stretch your offense scores at higher than average rate (ie every time, or 2 out of 3 times) and it gets you back into a game where you are down 6-10 with time becoming an issue. Theoretically, speaking of Drummond, if fouling out, and the bonus weren't a factor, you'd have a really good shot of beating the Pistons by simply sending Drummond to the line every single possession of the game. His 37.5% free throw percentage is the equivalent of 0.75 points per possession, which would be worse in the league for a team by a LARGE margin.
Parsons effect is more then just statistics. Just the fact without him we looked like a team in total malfunction mode and in his return we looked much better is more proof. The guy plays well off and on the ball. He makes the right passes and moves really well off the passers and gives them more efficient options.
just admit you are wrong and move on, there's no point trying to justify yourself when every statistic point to Parsons being a way way way more efficient scorer than Hayward while having a lower usage%. 39% vs %50 FG, 50%ts vs 60%ts is not splitting hairs
nothing in my post that was quoted was homerish. It was just pointing out facts. He might, he might not. I've seen Hayward enough now, and Parsons more than enough, to note that they are fairly equal in terms of capabilities. Pick whomever you like better. Hayward is younger, and doesn't have the talent around him to play that "filler" role that Parsons has. But Parsons seems a little more capable of playing that role and being more versatile, and is putting up the similar stats (albeit much more efficiently) despite a MEANINGFULLY lower usage rate. And I'd feel much more comfortable slotting Parsons at PF for spot minutes than I would Hayward. Hayward migh tbe a little better as a 2 conversely, though that is splitting hairs.
Considering Parsons yearly chart indicator he finishes 3% better each season interms of FG% from the field and he finished at 48% last season , it's not unrealistic to think he can. He also attacks the basket regulary and usually results in higher FG %.
5 games is too small of a sample size to show anything. So far he's performing right about where he left off last year, it'll take alot more than 5 games to show he's now an vastly improved scorer, rebounder and passer.
Parsons might be two inches taller but Hayward is absolutely stronger. Parsons is better at slicing through defenses but Hayward seems to be more explosive - just look at some of his blocks from behind on fast breaks. FG% means nothing when comparing these two. Parsons benefits from playing with two superstars, and when he drives, opposing bigs can't come over to help because they have to stay on Dwight. 3FG% also means nothing here because Parsons hardly ever shoots a contested 3. Most of his 3s are wide open corner 3s. Most of Hayward's shots are catch and shoot off of screens. Also, since he's the first option, Hayward is the one left to chuck up prayers with the shot clock winding down. Watch a couple of Jazz games (as painful as that might be), you almost feel sorry for the guy.
A better example would even be Player 1 4/10 but shoots every shot a three point attempt making him finish with 12 points on 10 shots at 40% Player 2 5/10 but shoots mid range jump shots for every attempt and finishes with 10 points on 50% shooting ^^^ shows how FG% should not be used in today's discussions on efficient shooting.
Hyperbole to make one's argument sound better. You know it, I know it, everybody knows your statement is over the top. More hyperbole for argument reinforcement. Nevermind Drummond's 13pts/13rebs... he could average 3/3 and still be on the list because the ONLY reason is age. Thanks for the laughs
There are more players that shoot 50% FG than 40% 3's. Your cherry picked scenario isn't reality. Regardless, FG% is not "useless". You're still free to believe whatever you choose. Please post another hyperbolic response.
MCW does not belong on this list. He had solid 15 games, so what? And by solid his shooting splits are 40.8/32.4/67.1, which isn't too bad for considering he shot below 40% from the field in college. He is 22. You are supposed to be at least decent at 22. There are many 2nd and 3rd years players younger than him. Darren Collison had better rookie season than him when CP3 got injured and he is nothing more than an average backup right now.
Why can't you agree that their are better matter metrics to use to compare players instead of FG%. We have stated the reasons like eFG and true shooting which factor in free throw shooting and the added point the 3 ball has. (Note I didn't use a HYBERBOYLE which you so like to point out for some reason
This is getting ridiculous. This standard vs. advanced metrics is like a math argument. Basic arithmetic is useful, but limited if you need advanced calculations. Algebra, Calculus, Trig, etc. can provide these advanced results but still contain elements of basic arithmetic. So if Harden can add, subtract and multiply he's good, but if Howard can derive and integrate he's more efficient. Wait, that's probably backwards.
