DoD, First, I find myself slipping into Mobley-apologist mode. Damn. Shake my head. I agree with Pole. OK...Mobley shoots 10-22. How many times does he get hammered at the rim. Let's say he got hammered twice. Without the two fouls he is likely 12-24...there's your 50%. The Pole stat is cute, and fair to the fact fouls often prevent sure-thing scores. How do you measure that...you can't from stats. Pole's stat gets pretty close. Here is the best example to back the Pole stat: How many times do you hear that Shaq would be absolutely god-like if he shot over 75% free throws. I think the reason for that is not just that he'd score more from the FT line; it is more that teams wouldn't be able to hack him anymore, thus his FG% goes up. IMO, Shaq would be shooting 60% from the field if it wasn't for the haq-a-shaq strategy. <font size="1"><font color="dedfdf> [This message has been edited by heypartner (edited November 02, 2000).] [This message has been edited by heypartner (edited November 02, 2000).]
I gotta believe Franschise's shots will start to fall.... Calvin keeps talking about how Steve really needs to learn to settle for the 10-15 foot jumper because that is what the defense is going to keep giving him. They are playing him for the drive. He too often passes on these shots choosing to drive it in closer for a lower percentage and more contested look. I feel like this is just a maturity thing and he will get it together. His skills are unquestioned and is an allstar waiting to happen...It will come. ------------------
IMO, the issue is NOT a statistical one regarding free throws versus FG%. When Cat goes into repeated ISO's everyone else is standing around. This has at least 2 major draw backs. First, when the ISO's are eventually countered by double teams, you have to know when and HOW to give it up. (Look at the difference in assists between Barkley and Cat last season). Charles got to the line AND he got his teammates involved during his career. (I realize Chuck was inside out, but that does NOT mean Cat can't dish from the ouside in). The TWolves seldom run ISO's for KG b/c he (and they) know how to get good shots in the offensive flow. With Cat's new drop step jumper, that kind of mentality would elevate all of the Rocks offensive game if he would give and it up to get it back. Secondly, the Rockets most needed area for improvement is (arguably) their defense. It is hard to be motivated to playing good solid D when you are not touching the ball on the O. Fast break points require less effort than ISO'S and EVERYONE gets involved. IMHO, I see Cats (or any Rockets) continuous street ball mano-a-mano as detrimental to TEAM basketball. Teamball is something the TWolves have learned in spite of the ominous shadow cast by Kevin Garnett. The isolations surely have their place, but should NOT be the only (and continous) option. Which is what happens for the Rockets all to frequently. Especially the losses! ------------------ GATER [This message has been edited by GATER (edited November 02, 2000).] [This message has been edited by GATER (edited November 02, 2000).] [This message has been edited by GATER (edited November 02, 2000).]
Thanks for getting my back Heypartner, but IF Dreamer is right, I have little argument for my "stat." The thing is: I can't verify if he is right--or for that matter, if I'm right. I've poured over the NBA rules, and I can't find how they treat this (scoring-wize). My argument is based on the assumption that when a player is fouled and misses a shot, that "shot attempt" is recorded (ie: o for 1). If that player then goes to the line and sinks both free throws, he still scores two points for his attempted shot--even though his FG% based on that one attempt is 0%. If I'm correct, then my "stat" is not "cute"--it may be the most important stat ever for assessing offensive prowess. Not only is the player scoring well, but he's getting the other team in foul trouble. Dreamer's argument is that when a player misses a shot after being fouled, that shot attempt is NOT recorded (ie: 0 for 0). If he is correct, then my "stat" loses most of it's credibility and FG% actually means something. As I said, I've been pouring over the official rules, and I can't find any proof one way or the other. I've found a definition for "shot attempt," and it doesn't have a disclaimer saying that a fouled and missed attempt is not counted. I've also considered this: How is a fouled and MADE attempt counted--is it a function of FG%? If so, that is another argument against Dreamer's point. Still, it's not nearly enough to prove either one of us right or wrong. I've tried in the past to explain the importance of this stat (and I obviously wasn't all that successful), but my argument was based on the assumption that a fouled and missed shot was a function of FG%. Again, I must reiterate: my "stat" is pretty much useless if Dreamer is correct. So here's my request. IF anyone knows the answer to this, I really want to see it. No offense to anyone--especially Dreamer, but I want to see it in writing somewhere (and not in someone's post). When a player attempts a shot, is fouled, and he misses, is that shot attempt recorded or "thrown out." Please, please, please: if you know where the answer to this question is, I'd really love to see it. ------------------ stop posting my damn signature
I beleive the shot is not recorded. I watched Tuesday's game again yesterday and counted 22 shots by Mobley on which he wasn't fouled, meaning that the times he went to the line weren't counted as shot attempts. P.S. Also, this is the way it is recorded on on every NBA video game I've played. (for what its worth) ------------------ Ugh, Another Rockets off-season....I'm gonna need a keg of Pepto-Bismol.
If you are fouled on a shot it does not count as an attempt unless it goes in, then it is counted as an attempt and a make. DaDakota ------------------ All you MO-FO's better stop ripping off my lines !!
That is correct, the shot is only counted if it is made, but if the player doesn't make it, and he's fouled, then it wouldn't count as an atempt. I won't try to find this in writting but I assure you I'm positive about it. ------------------ against all odds
Pts/min in my eyes is one dimensional. Pts/min. tells you one thing : how good a scorer am I? Just because you're a good scorer, doesn't mean you're a good contributor to the team (again, I'm not using Cuttino as an example). Cases in point : Jerry Stackhouse and Antoine Walker. When those 2 get together, everybody else can pretty much stay back and watch because you'll never see the ball again. ------------------ A friend of mine graduated from law school in May, and he's had a heck of a time finding work....He might be a moron, though. (I don't think he is, but one never knows. He was a moron when we were five years-old.) -- mrpaige reflects on his friends
I can't find it in writing anywhere, but if I do I'll post it. However, I know for a fact that: ... if a player is fouled in the act of shooting and misses the shot, neither his FGA nor his FGM changes. ... if a player is fouled in the act of shooting and makes the shot, both his FGA and FGM are incremented by 1. This is exactly why I was saying your interpretation that "FG% doesn't matter" is flawed. FG% matters, but not absolutely. ------------------ A friend of mine graduated from law school in May, and he's had a heck of a time finding work....He might be a moron, though. (I don't think he is, but one never knows. He was a moron when we were five years-old.) -- mrpaige reflects on his friends
You're not agreeing with Pole necessarily with that statement. You're more agreeing with what I'm saying that FG% does matter. He made two more "guaranteed" baskets at the rim rather than an 85% chance (his FT%) of making 2 points from the line. The ultimate would be if he made the "guaranteed" baskets and also got fouled (common sense, though, I know). I don't disagree with the old "Pole Ratio" as we called it in his honor. It's a good indicator of efficiency. All I disagreed with was him stating that FG% doesn't matter if you're getting to the line. I think Shaq's a poor example to use because if you don't foul Shaq, just go ahead and automatically ring up the 2 points because it's going in. Would you rather have him 75% from the line, or 100% on that dunk? I ask because anyone that fouls Shaq outside of 10 feet is nuts (although he's improved in that respect). If you don't foul him within 10 feet, get ready to eat rubber. Also, now you have me doubting myself. You're saying that Shaq would be shooting 60% from the field if he weren't fouled. Am I understanding you correctly? I'm to imply that a missed FG attempt caused by a foul counts against a player's FGA? This is totally the opposite of what I've known it to be. If what Pole says is correct, then I think I need to re-evaluate. Hehe. ------------------ A friend of mine graduated from law school in May, and he's had a heck of a time finding work....He might be a moron, though. (I don't think he is, but one never knows. He was a moron when we were five years-old.) -- mrpaige reflects on his friends
DoD...now you have me spinning and questioning myself. you're right...I cannot agree that FG% doesn't matter. I thought Pole was exaggerating for effect with that statement. About the foul issue, that should be clear, just hard to put in writing. I'm not saying teams hammer Mobley on purpose to send him to the line; but they aren't bailing him out either. Let me try the question again, if the defense never touches his arms or knocks into his body, do those shot attempts in the lane go in at better clip than 43% (his FG%). I say, yes they would. The foul is robbing him of is easier attempts, skewing his FG% to representing his long-range shots and turnarounds. The Pole ratio somewhat takes that into consideration that FG% is skewed to show tougher shots for those players who get to the rim and get fouled for it. Can we say that Mobley at 45% is the same as Bullard at 45%. Someone like Bullard who never gets to the rim, the FG% is a perfectly accurate measurement. Mobley's percentage is not showing his close range shots accurately, because the defenders are hitting his arms.
