How Many Shots are Available to the Rockets Starting Power Forward?

Good thread these last few pages.

Stick around jtr. I need these lulz.

 

Nope. I just don't have to work today...also I just got back from a trip to Japan and my sleep schedule is completely upside down.

I am a pain in the ass. It has been my intention to be so for the last several pages. The reason for that is simple. You've been disrespecting every single person in this thread with your arrogance.

Answer this for me, what is to be gained by talking down to everyone here? Let's even assume you ARE that much smarter than every other person here (something I don't believe) why would you speak to them as if they're children?

Durvasa, a highly respected poster on this forum, told you your tone was off base. Perhaps you should listen to his counsel.

 

I would like to point out that nothing cmelmel77 said has not already been said numerous times in this thread (notably by Carl Herrera). But now you respect his input because he used variables? A point does not have to be posed as a formula to be insightful.

Anyways I suppose I should help you out where you're getting this wrong. You're assuming that the PF position will be the ONLY position to see it's FGA decrease due to Howard. That's clearly untrue. The additional shots by Howard over what Asik took last year will be taken from the rest of the starters collectively. Might the PF be the largest contributor to those shots? Sure, I would think so. But to assume that the "big 4" (we're not calling them this) have their FGA set in stone from last year....or even from two years ago for Dwight (another wild reach) is faulty.

Last year, in 14 starts, DMo averaged 8 shots per game. That was in 21.2 MPG. That's 12.45 shots per 33. You really think he's suddenly going to start taking half as many shots per minute? I don't think so.

 

Jtr,

You got trolled, dont be bothered by others opinions, simply make your case and let folks debate it.

DD

 

If the Rocket's starter at power forward averages 10 points per game, that will be very good this year, regardless of who the starter is. It will also probably require a relatively high level of shooting efficiency, as if he is not shooting efficiently, he likely will be asked to shoot less.

 

I've worked statisticians all my career. And I can tell you something, it doesn't matter how complex or sophisticated your analysis is when the fundamental rationale and set-up is flawed. The expression goes - garbage in garbage out.

You put a lot of time into your analysis, but the issue I take with what you are doing is the arbitrary nature of some of your assumptions (which you aren't explaining how it might skew your analysis) and the rationale for choosing the metrics you do.

The whole LMA thing is ridiculous. You are looking at his shooting percentage at a certain distance and assuming that he shoots that percentage the same as when he is open and when he is not. You aren't considering that he is one of the prime options on the floor in Portland and therefore faces more focus from defenses and has to take tougher shots. You aren't adjusting that to how it would be different in Houston where he would get a lot more open looks since he would be the 3rd option especially playing off of D Howard.

Morey has even come out and said that the mid-range game can't be ignored and it's important. Yet you still keep trumpeting this argument without considering the simple idea that sometimes you have to take the shot the defense is giving you - and if its a wide open 15 foot jumper, you take it because you will hit that at above a 50% clip. I mean, seriously, you realize that NBA players a wide open 15 ft jumper is an awesome shot right? But you can't accept that, and you aren't willing to concede that point.

And because of that, it undermines all your stats and data which completely doesn't control for open shots versus contested shots.

Garbage in ---> Garbage out.

 

I agree with all of this in theory, but I don't think it works that way. Yes Aldridge might get a higher % of open shots, but not to such a degree that he would just always be open. Aldridge likes taking those shots. He likes taking those shots contested. He likes taking those shots contested while spinning and falling away. You can account for open shot vs contested all you want, but when he shoots low 40s overall on a very high volume it's just not good.

So yeah, if he took nothing but open midrange shots that would be great. I just don't believe Aldridge would make that adjustment.

 

I see we popping our collars and pounding our chest up in this thang. Pimpn that **** you doing is not cool at all. LOL I am more educated than you,, really, "come on mayne" In my Chris Carter's voice. I also see that you are very passionate when it comes to statistic. But statistic can be misleading, you do know that. Especially since you are more educated than everyone else.

 

His post was full of holes. People started pointing out the obvious holes. He gets defensive and starts insulting the intelligence if everyone on here by pounding his chest and talking down to everyone. THEN he got trolled.

He got what he deserved.

 

MY STATISTICS PHALLUS IS BIGGER THAN YOURS.

 

I don't respect my own post, because I used an uncivil tone. So, let's start over.

Yes, I do think the staggered minutes are critical. I have no doubt that the other four starters would take as many shots as you and their history suggests that they will (the possible exception being Lin, who will give some to Beverly and some to Howard as the recipient of P&R plays that he might otherwise have kept).

So, let's assume that on a per-minute basis you are correct on all of your assumptions ... I'll show that you can get the PF more shots without giving up anything from the others (and I would argue it is a more realistic scenario than a single large block of minutes with 5 starters playing together)

* Assume all 5 starters play the first 8 minutes together
* That leaves 40 minutes, or 8 different 5 minute blocks
* Put each starter in for 5 of those blocks (so each gets 33 minutes/game)
* If those are distributed randomly (for simplicity - I'll address this at the end) that means each block would be expected to have 3 starters (25 "block-man" slots for the starters / 8 blocks)
* Thus, for the 5 blocks played by the PF, he would expect to see only 2 other high-usage starters.
* So, for 25 of his 33 minutes, he would be playing with two high-usage and two low-usage players. On a per-minute basis, more shots would be available. In your sample, all but Harden used about .33 shots per minute (~11 shots/game over 33 minutes), so let's assume ~.7 shots from the two high-usage players with whom the PF plays
* If the Rockets play at a 1.72 shots/minute pace (forgetting free throws for simplicity) that still leaves ~1 shot/minute for the PF and the two bench players.
* Assume he gets half of those, he will have 0.5 shots * 25 minutes = 12-13 shots + whatever he shoots in the first 8 minutes.

Again, I made plenty of over-simplifying assumptions there. First is the random distribution assumption - obviously it wouldn't be random as there would be trios that McHale would favor, but there is no reason to think the PF would have to be in the highest-usage trios. Second, I recognize that at the end of the game (and likely at other times) 4 or 5 starters will still be in, but that also means that there will be blocks with fewer than 3 starters where the pF could get more shots. And, in any case that is only one (or 1.5) of the 8 5-minute blocks - so it doesn't change the results too much. Third, this doesn't adjust for free throws or varying minutes or injuries.

The point, though, is that allocation of minutes and specific combinations will absolutely affect the shots available. The model above gives 13-15 shots to the PF (more than anyone but Harden took last year) without stealing shots from anyone else. Even if you argue with some of the simplifying assumptions, the point is clear that an 11-12 shot per game PF could be accommodated rather easily.

Now, can we please move away from insults and name-calling, on all fronts?

P.S. What I said about my "resume" was accurate, but that is NOT the most impressive one here. I know a few others who post, so I can assert that with utter confidence.

 

To be clear, I am not saying that this is how minutes should be allocated, or that our starters should/will play only 33 minutes, or that we need a high-usage PF ... I am only saying that minute allocations matter and that a high-usage PF could be accommodated by allowing him and all other starters to get roughly the same number of shots (or attempts, including free throws) as they have in the past.

"Could" does not imply "should," though. Personally I would prefer a combination of a "taller Battier" type myself (strong defender, smart passer, good shooter, knows his limitations) and a lock-down perimeter defender at the back-up 2/3 position. These two would give us more flexibility to go large or small and still have sufficient offense and defense.

 

This was probably a stats joke that went over my head because my salary isn't 6 figures.

 

I agree with Carl and Cmlmel77 and others who have questioned the OP's methods used in determining the small number of shots that will be available to the Rocket's starting PF. I think they have made their case well.

However, I would once again like to point out, as many have, that there is nothing static about usage rates. Look at the huge range in Lin's usage rates over his career. Look at how Nash's rate went up dramatically in his last years with the Suns (at an age when the rate usually declines) because the offensive ability of his teammates had gone done. Look at how Pippen's and Barkley's usage rates declined when they joined the Rockets. The point is players (and coaches) should and do adjust shot distribution based on how it will affect overall team true shooting %. The number of shots the PF gets will vary depending upon who is playing the position.

To take extreme examples: Say the Rockets are deciding between one of two options: trading Asik for Ryan Anderson or going with the twin towers in the starting lineup. If they trade for Anderson, everybody's usage rate (including Anderson's) will probably go down. If they go with the twin towers, the usage rates won't go down (or won't go down as much). But fixating on shot attempts and usage rates moves us away from the key question, which is: will the increased team true shooting % on the offensive end if we deal for Anderson make up for the loss of rebounds and increased opposing team's true shooting % that come from Asik's absence. (I think it probably won't.)

 

I didn't go through all the math like you, but I don't think the OP's intent is to say that the PF will literally only have that many shots available. I view it as him making the argument that if the other starters shoot at roughly the same rate as in previous years, there very likely won't be many shots available for the 5th starter. Not an earth-shattering point, of course, but its something to consider -- are we really in need for an offense-oriented PF with so much scoring and shot-creation ability at the other spots? I think this is a legitimate topic for discussion.

 

I tried to help the guy back on page six (as I was trying to help him with his method earlier) when I wrote

"jtr, this is all due to your pride, man. Exhale and come back into the fold. Breathe."

but, this probably seemed like a provocation to him, because it was so impossible for him to imagine. Letting go of pride? Coming back into the fold?

I still have not seen anything from jtr to make me believe he is above normal intelligence. But I have seen that Dude is a wad. His spelling sucks, but hey, he only claims brilliance in one area.

Let's make this simple enough for everyone to understand:

jtr's choice of 33 mpg was not supported by historical data. Historical data (by his mix-n-match Rox-n-Lakers method) would suggest 36 mpg. This is not within his arbitrary 5% margin of error. Therefore jtr's calculations are just an arithmetic display, not accurate predictors of reality.

I will wager jtr that the four guys he mentioned in OP do not average 33 mpg +/-5% this season, in order to demonstrate that his calculation on page 1 are useless when applied to the 2013-2014 season.

 

I'm convinced this is the nerdy version of Kanye West. Cliff West. The arrogance coming off of his posts is actually making me laugh. It feels like satire almost.

 

Nicely reasoned; I like the dividing into blocks to simplify.

JTR's basic argument boils down to "we don't need more offense in the starting group" because there are only so many shots available, and we aren't going to have problems generating good shots with the current group. Picking out the PF as the position getting fewest shots muddles the general idea, as a good offensive PF would get shots... but at the expense of a few shots for all the other players.

Spreading the offense across the team minutes is the obvious answer, but I like your take on that. You should post more often.

 

Lol, you just have to sound pompous.
My math may not be as refined as yours, but i can certainly understand English. I have no understanding of Latin, maybe you can help me out by using Mandarine.

To simplified what you are saying is that because of the rule of math, an average of 33 minutes will be the same as the average of 48 minutes.

That may be true, in math, but not so when it comes to basketball.

cmlmel77 have shown an example how your equation is limited and flawed as it cater to only 5 players and not 9-10 players which is the normal rotation.

In other words, the average that evens out is by an assumption that production by the subs (bench) will match the starter, which is not possible. Using your starting out math,

82.5 shots by a rocket.

Dwight Howard 9.91 + 3 ( your assumption)
Jeremy Lin 10.94
Chandler Parsons 11.45
James Harden 16.30

= 51.6

That is still 30.9 in a game where the rest of the rotation takes.

Hence my counter to your predictions of the PF will only have 5-6 shots per game. Is that even by going along with your predictions of FGA, a better PF ( not the current ones of DMO and TRob) will take a large chunk of that 30.9 FGA available.