how many "bad" plays other super stars make on average in a game? 6 of 19 shooting wasnt "good" enough, but he is coming to shape, so that's encouraging.
I don't understand then. My post says TM didn't do enough on defense. Isn't that part of this topic (on whether TM did something to help this team to win)? Defense is also a part you can do to help your team, right? As for whether TM did well at the offense end, he still didn't meet the expectation given he earns 20M a year. Should I be classified as a TM hater? Even I don't know. I only know I want TM to play better.
On the defensive end, I only noticed 4 plays where he played poorly. Also, Granger scored a lot of his points with TMac on the bench or when TMac rotated to another player. He also hit some good shots with a hand in his face. I agree TMac shouldn't have made those 4 errors (they were definitely hustle-related...or lack thereof). But the majority of the game, his man was camped out behind the three point line and he was standing there with him. BUT, he could be playing better defensively. Overall, his d wasn't bad, though.
Well, most of T-Mac's criticism is how he fits into the offense. He had a poor shooting night last night. Its not wrong to feel that way. You also probably arent the target audience of Blake's thread. And who doesnt want T-Mac to play better?
Just one question: Suppose one takes 20 open shots and miss all of them, are they neutral or bad? If one often shots below 35% in a whole game while taking 15-20 shots a game, even if all the shots are open shots, good or bad? Your analysis makes some sense, but there are a lot of subjectiveness in it. I am not trying to bashing him or praising him with this post, I just want to say: the way you made the analysis can only be taken as some kind of reference rather than proof.
If the shots are open shots and are missed, they are neutral. If the shots are long range jumpshots with a defender in your face and missed, it's bad. Any shot (when you have enough range to hit from anywhere) that is open is a good shot. If it was made, it's good. If it was missed, it's neutral. I really don't see how it is biased. I counted against him everytime he took an ill-advised 3 or jumpshot. Those are bad shots, and when he missed them, I scored it as a bad shot. I had no idea I would have to sit here and defend my post so often. I figured people would look at it and say, "wow, there is more than the box score shows and TMac actually did play a good game and we ended up winning. he didn't settle for crappy jumpshots and drove to the hole" It could change tonight, I was just pointing out one game.
Does that player have business taking an open shot from that spot on the floor?? If yes, then yes its a good shot, and I would think that under this analysis they would count neutral. A bad shot is a bad shot, whether you are shooting 10 for 10 or 0 for 20. I think thats why folks dont like T-Mac's heat checks.
So 19 shots for only 19 points is great? That's awfully low efficiency. 12 shots for 17 points worse than 19 shots for 19 points?
Blake, I really appreciate the effort. I am also tired of all the unfounded hatred around here. That said, I think your catagories are too simplistic. For one, missing a shot should always be a bad play, even if it's a good shot. I mean, Rafer gets grilled because he misses wide open shots that he should be taking. But missing a good shot is definitely not as bad as missing an ill-advised shot. Similarly, making a shot should always be a good play. One of the reasons guys like T-Mac are superstar because they can make tough shots ordinary players can't make. Also, sometimes you are forced to take tough shots because your teammates are not moving correctly, or the shot clock is expiring. So, just pigeonholing plays as "good" "bad" and "neutral" does not give an accurate picture. Perhaps you need to rate a play from +3 (very good) to -3 (very bad), or something like that. And you have to take the context of each play individually. For example, sometimes making an open midrange shot is not as good as hitting a wide open teammate under the basket.
Free throw disparity. T-Mac got fouled on at least 3 penetrating shots, and perhaps one could have been called on the alley-oop. Thats 6-8 more FT attempts he could have had. Counter with Yao: if a couple of his fouls arent called, he gets less points and more attempts... Yao actually got the calls he was supposed to get last night, which is refreshing. Though I certainly wouldnt say Mac had a better game than Yao, both were under their norms. Both shot poorly from the field.
RE EAST: See, I disagree. The common argument here is that TMac spends his time making bad plays. Lots of people complain that he just rushes bad jumpshots and doesn't drive it to the whole like he used to. The game (just one game, mind you...I can't say it's every game) showed that he didn't do that often (4 times I think) and instead drove it to the hole or passed well out of the double which created open looks. I didn't say a missed shot was good. I counted a missed shot, if it was an open shot or a drive to the hole, a neutral shot. If Rafer shoots an open shot and misses, I don't think it's a "bad shot". It's a good shot selection and he missed it, so it's neutral in my book. If he takes a rushed long range shot with a defender on him and misses, it's a bad shot. You can disagree, but the point was to see if his time on the floor involved good or bad decisions, if they lead to baskets for others, and if he really just spent time taking ill-advised jumpers or really created and drove to the hole. Once again, THIS GAME, he did the latter. I'm not arguing about his whole season.
Easy, I think he is pointing to the decisions of T-Mac. People say he had a bad game chucking long shots and not driving. Blake has simply shown that to not be the case. An open shot for a player who can hit that shot IS always a good shot. Novak shooting an open 3 is always a good shot. Scola open from 16 feet on the baseline is always a good shot. If you miss, you get a neutral score for missing. If you take a well contested long range J its a bad shot, so why not bump it to neutral if he makes it. I wouldnt go all the way to good because its still a bad shot. T-Mac just has that ability that few do to make bad shots. Edit: See?
Nice work, Blake. I'm no Tmac fan but I don't even think someone can make a logical argument that the team is better without him.
If one consistently miss open shots, doesn't mean he is not working hard enough and he is liable? For someone who is paid at super star level salary, we would expect >50% on open shots on average. So I just don't think on the long run, your assumption is sound and objective enough. For a single game, maybe. But if one consistently misses open shots, then the open shots he takes and missed can not be counted as neutral. This is just my general opinion, not targeted to T-Mac, but targeted to your analysis, i.e. I don't think your analysis is 100% objective, although there are good values in your analysis.
You have to take free throw into account. People would criticize Yao if he only takes fade aways and misses without getting calls. Well, I think that is a legitimite complain under that scenario. (Of course, if refs just won't make the call, it is anothe story). I would say even if one was 0 out 20 shots but earn 40 points on free throw line he was doing great offensively. You have no right to complain about his percentage under this scenario. Of couse, I still hope both they would get more points through higher % if possible. A low % with few FT is no good at all. I do agree that Yao's offensive game is mediocre in last game. Well, when you are super star, when you get a stat that would only be good for an role player, you will be considered failed or so-so at best.
I think if a player couldnt hit the shots being taken, they wouldnt put that guy in a position to take them. You dont see Scola standing behind the 3 line. Considering 45% on field goals(which is every shot a player takes) is considered good for a perimeter player, T-Mac is close enough on that.
On open shots, he was 5-11. Not 50% this time around. Close, but not 50%. I have no idea what his shooting % is on open shots in other games. I don't think (key word...think) that he misses a lot of open shots normally, he just sometimes takes bad covered shots (4 this game) The stat that stuck out the most to me in this game was the fact that he drove it to the hole 15 times and only took 4 ill advised, covered jumpers. Perhaps it's just one game, but it goes against what most complain about. On free throws (2 of his misses were due to fouls) I believe he was 4-4.
45% is fine for parameter player for all the shots he takes, but definitly not good for open shots. I was saying that the way Blake count good/bad plays are not 100% objective. Maybe you just can not.
I would say any jumpshot taken after 10 straight misses would be bad, open or not, because you are thinking too hard and not just shooting. Talk to John Starks about this. Or maybe ask Jamal Crawford last night in Portland. Must be a Knick(Brick) thing.
