Jump to content

 

Photo
- - - - -

Why won't Woodson MAKE SMOOVE quit shooting jumpshots!


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
92 replies to this topic

#31 dlpin

dlpin

    Celtics Fan

  • Squawkers
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 842 posts
  • Joined 08-May 08

Posted 07 January 2010 - 03:04 PM

I am on board with Smith not shooting jumpers at all, I am just pointing out there is an additional cost to long-range shooting for guys who are expected to impact the offensive rebounding that is not captured in the efg% metric.


I understand that. But his argument was that the long 2 is better than the 3. A long 2 has the same issue of moving a PF away from the boards.

#32 AHF

AHF

    General Manager

  • Moderators
  • 20,332 posts
  • Joined 26-January 04

Posted 07 January 2010 - 04:04 PM

I understand that. But his argument was that the long 2 is better than the 3. A long 2 has the same issue of moving a PF away from the boards.


Agreed. But mid-range jumpers may leave Smoove in range to crash the boards.

#33 TheNorthCydeRises

TheNorthCydeRises

    Hall of Fame

  • Squawkers
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,013 posts
  • Joined 25-October 13

Posted 07 January 2010 - 07:40 PM

You explained it perfectly, but Northcyde won't care. Or he'll try to find some way to say that 2+2 is not, in fact, 4.


Oh no, he explained it right. But my point still stands as well. Tell me guys . . why is a 33% 3-point shooter looked down upon, but a 50% 2-point shooter praised? If the efficiency is the same, why is one looked down upon?

#34 Buzzard

Buzzard

    Hall of Fame

  • Squawkers
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,703 posts
  • Joined 08-July 04

Posted 07 January 2010 - 07:53 PM

Oh no, he explained it right. But my point still stands as well. Tell me guys . . why is a 33% 3-point shooter looked down upon, but a 50% 2-point shooter praised? If the efficiency is the same, why is one looked down upon?

I guess in your world the guy who shoots 33% from 3pt range cannot be the same guy who shoots 50% from 2pt range? I mean if you look down on the 33% shooter then he cannot also be the 50% shooter that you look up to? Or I am missing something and this is not what you are saying?

For me most 50% FG shooters are bigs and I think its not so much they are praised for that%; as much as they would be run out of town if they shot worse than that. If you are inside six ft when you first touch the ball and 6'9" inches or taller, 50% is expected I would think and not really praised.

#35 niremetal

niremetal

    All-Star

  • Squawk Supporter
  • 2,608 posts
  • Joined 15-July 09

Posted 07 January 2010 - 07:57 PM

Oh no, he explained it right. But my point still stands as well. Tell me guys . . why is a 33% 3-point shooter looked down upon, but a 50% 2-point shooter praised? If the efficiency is the same, why is one looked down upon?


I love you how say that they are looked down upon as if your opinion is SO obviously right that it is held almost universally. Clearly, it is not. I do not look down on a 33% 3 point shooter. Neither do a lot of people around here. Neither do a lot of the basketball writers and other lay "experts." In fact, I'd wager that neither do most GMs in the league today. And even if I were to grant that most fans "look down on" a 33% 3-point shooter compared to a 50% 2-point shooter (and I don't grant that they do - it doesn't take more than a quick look at the stat sheets to realize that a 50% 2 point shooter is not that impressive; the league average is 49%), that doesn't mean a damned thing. As in all sports, the closer you get to the people in charge of making decisions, the more you realize that the views held by the loudest fans are not necessarily shared by those who actually know what the hell they're talking about.

Edited by niremetal, 07 January 2010 - 08:12 PM.


#36 Buzzard

Buzzard

    Hall of Fame

  • Squawkers
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,703 posts
  • Joined 08-July 04

Posted 07 January 2010 - 08:09 PM

I love you how say that they are looked down upon as if your opinion is SO obviously right that it is held almost universally. Clearly, it is not. I do not look down on a 33% 3 point shooter. Neither do a lot of people around here. Neither do a lot of the basketball writers and other lay "experts." In fact, I'd wager that neither do most GMs in the league today. And even if I were to grant that most fans "look down on" a 33% 3-point shooter, that doesn't mean a damned thing. As in all sports, the closer you get to the people in charge of making decisions, the more you realize that the views held by the loudest fans are not necessarily shared by those who actually know what the hell they're talking about.

Yes my point also concerning the 50% being looked up to. 50% is expected from bigs. 33% is probably average concerning 3 pt shooting as well. This thread is about Smoove; and 33% from anywhere outside of 17 ft has no business in the same thread with him much less the same sentence. How did we get sidetracked on this. Has Woody told Smoove to keep shooting jumpers until you can hit 33%?

#37 niremetal

niremetal

    All-Star

  • Squawk Supporter
  • 2,608 posts
  • Joined 15-July 09

Posted 07 January 2010 - 08:13 PM

I love you how say that they are looked down upon as if your opinion is SO obviously right that it is held almost universally. Clearly, it is not. I do not look down on a 33% 3 point shooter. Neither do a lot of people around here. Neither do a lot of the basketball writers and other lay "experts." In fact, I'd wager that neither do most GMs in the league today. And even if I were to grant that most fans "look down on" a 33% 3-point shooter compared to a 50% 2-point shooter (and I don't grant that they do - it doesn't take more than a quick look at the stat sheets to realize that a 50% 2 point shooter is not that impressive; the league average is 49%), that doesn't mean a damned thing. As in all sports, the closer you get to the people in charge of making decisions, the more you realize that the views held by the loudest fans are not necessarily shared by those who actually know what the hell they're talking about.


As if on cue...
http://online.wsj.co...1755710720.html

The stat pointed to a simple truth that many league executives swear by today: a cheap sharp shooter who makes 33% of his three-point shots (a pretty common benchmark) is just as valuable as a big man who makes half of his two-point shots—a feat that isn't accomplished nearly as often.

That's from yesterday's Wall Street Journal.

#38 TheNorthCydeRises

TheNorthCydeRises

    Hall of Fame

  • Squawkers
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,013 posts
  • Joined 25-October 13

Posted 07 January 2010 - 08:17 PM

Agreed. But mid-range jumpers may leave Smoove in range to crash the boards.


I agree with this as well. Smoove will be in much better position to rebound his own miss, if he were taking a 16 foot jumper, compared to a 24 foot jumper.

Overall though, I just have a huge problem with the notion that the midrange shot is the most useless shot in basketball. If anything, it's the most underutilized shot in basketball. You have a ton of bad shooters just jacking up 3 point shots, just for the hell of it. Those guys would be much better off just taking the more makeable 2 point shot.

In Smoove's case, he shouldn't take any jumper, because it's such a low percentage shot for him, regardless of where he shoots it. Instead, I like him when he embraces the playmaker role. He may be our best passer on the team in regards to vision.

#39 dlpin

dlpin

    Celtics Fan

  • Squawkers
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 842 posts
  • Joined 08-May 08

Posted 07 January 2010 - 08:33 PM

I agree with this as well. Smoove will be in much better position to rebound his own miss, if he were taking a 16 foot jumper, compared to a 24 foot jumper.

Overall though, I just have a huge problem with the notion that the midrange shot is the most useless shot in basketball. If anything, it's the most underutilized shot in basketball. You have a ton of bad shooters just jacking up 3 point shots, just for the hell of it. Those guys would be much better off just taking the more makeable 2 point shot.

In Smoove's case, he shouldn't take any jumper, because it's such a low percentage shot for him, regardless of where he shoots it. Instead, I like him when he embraces the playmaker role. He may be our best passer on the team in regards to vision.



No, it is in fact the worst shot in basketball. Close up shots are high percentage and often lead to free throws. 3 point shots are lower percentage, but worth more. Long 2s rarely lead to free throws and are just as low percentage. There is a reason why coaches worry first about penetration, second about 3 point shots, and only last about long 2s.

And if you don't believe me:

http://www.82games.com/comm51.htm

And here is the final proof:

http://82games.com/nbashots.htm

Just to point out the important part, using data from 2003-2004

FG%

0-5ft - 57%
06--11ft- 37%
12-17ft- 38%
18-line- 39%
3 point shots - 35%

in eFG% terms:

0-5ft - 57%
06--11ft- 37%
12-17ft- 38%
18-line- 39%
3 point shots - 52%


There is a reason every team defense focuses on penetration and 3 point shots first.

#40 TheNorthCydeRises

TheNorthCydeRises

    Hall of Fame

  • Squawkers
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,013 posts
  • Joined 25-October 13

Posted 07 January 2010 - 08:53 PM

As if on cue...
http://online.wsj.co...1755710720.html

That's from yesterday's Wall Street Journal.



LOL @ calling a 33% 3 point shooter "a sharpshooter". If the shooting in the NBA is at a point in which GMs are calling 33% 3FG guys "sharpshooters", then it just proves just how much good shootng has disappeared in the NBA. You did prove that people may not think that 33% is bad though, so I have to give you props on that.

So let me ask you this? Would you add a 33% 3FG shooter to the Hawks lineup, as opposed to a 6-11 guy who could shoot 50% FG?

LOL . . in other words, would you bring Salim Stoudamire back?

#41 niremetal

niremetal

    All-Star

  • Squawk Supporter
  • 2,608 posts
  • Joined 15-July 09

Posted 07 January 2010 - 08:58 PM

LOL @ calling a 33% 3 point shooter "a sharpshooter". If the shooting in the NBA is at a point in which GMs are calling 33% 3FG guys "sharpshooters", then it just proves just how much good shootng has disappeared in the NBA. You did prove that people may not think that 33% is bad though, so I have to give you props on that.

So let me ask you this? Would you add a 33% 3FG shooter to the Hawks lineup, as opposed to a 6-11 guy who could shoot 50% FG?

LOL . . in other words, would you bring Salim Stoudamire back?


There's a difference between 50% FG% and 50% 2P%. And yes, I would rather have have no preference between a 33% 3FG shooter than a 50% 2P shooter if I were picking blindly and knew nothing about the team's needs. Beyond that, it's case by case. The point of all this is simple: The mid-range jumper is less efficient than the 3 pointer. You called that a lie. And now you're just bobbing, weaving, and generally sounding foolish trying to keep up the argument.

Keep LOLing all you want. You have nothing but bluster and your anecdotes about the "good ol' days" to back up your argument that the mid-range jumper isn't the least efficient shot in the game.

Edited by niremetal, 07 January 2010 - 09:23 PM.


#42 TheNorthCydeRises

TheNorthCydeRises

    Hall of Fame

  • Squawkers
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,013 posts
  • Joined 25-October 13

Posted 07 January 2010 - 09:57 PM

There's a difference between 50% FG% and 50% 2P%. And yes, I would rather have have no preference between a 33% 3FG shooter than a 50% 2P shooter if I were picking blindly and knew nothing about the team's needs. Beyond that, it's case by case. The point of all this is simple: The mid-range jumper is less efficient than the 3 pointer. You called that a lie. And now you're just bobbing, weaving, and generally sounding foolish trying to keep up the argument.

Keep LOLing all you want. You have nothing but bluster and your anecdotes about the "good ol' days" to back up your argument that the mid-range jumper isn't the least efficient shot in the game.


Wow.

Both JJ and Crawford KILL PEOPLE when they take midrange jumpers

Kobe Bryant makes a living from midrange. So does Dirk. so does Brandon Roy. So does Deron Williams.

Carmelo is a lethal scorer based off of his midrange prowess.

Rip Hamilton's entire offensive game is the midrange jumper.

Zach Randolph, a guy that used to jack up his share of 3's, is now a midrange MONSTER.

If Iggy had a midrange shot, he'd be better than JJ.

Monta Ellis, Chris Bosh, Luou Deng . . .

Wow . . . seriously? You devalue the midrange jumper that much, even though you watch JJ night in and night out pretty much kill people with it?

#43 niremetal

niremetal

    All-Star

  • Squawk Supporter
  • 2,608 posts
  • Joined 15-July 09

Posted 07 January 2010 - 10:19 PM

You devalue the midrange jumper that much, even though you watch JJ night in and night out pretty much kill people with it?


Ok, since you mentioned him twice, I just looked up JJ:
http://hoopdata.com/...ame=Joe Johnson

Here is the ranking of his eFG% by spot on the floor:
At rim - 57%
<10ft - 55.2%
3pt - 51.0%
10-15ft - 49.2%
15-23ft - 39.0%

And here is the ranking of where he scores his points, in descending order:
3pt - 4.8ppg (1.6 x 3)
At rim - 4.2ppg (2.1 x 2)
<10ft - 3.8ppg (...)
16-23 - 3.6ppg
10-15ft - 1.8ppg

And it was the exact same order last year. So if mid-range is the area of the floor where JJ scores the least points and shoots the lowest effective percentage, how exactly does he "kill people" from there? It sounds like that is where JJ is LEAST effective.

Thanks for proving my point.

Edited by niremetal, 07 January 2010 - 10:22 PM.


#44 dlpin

dlpin

    Celtics Fan

  • Squawkers
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 842 posts
  • Joined 08-May 08

Posted 07 January 2010 - 11:21 PM

Wow.

Both JJ and Crawford KILL PEOPLE when they take midrange jumpers

Kobe Bryant makes a living from midrange. So does Dirk. so does Brandon Roy. So does Deron Williams.

Carmelo is a lethal scorer based off of his midrange prowess.

Rip Hamilton's entire offensive game is the midrange jumper.

Zach Randolph, a guy that used to jack up his share of 3's, is now a midrange MONSTER.

If Iggy had a midrange shot, he'd be better than JJ.

Monta Ellis, Chris Bosh, Luou Deng . . .

Wow . . . seriously? You devalue the midrange jumper that much, even though you watch JJ night in and night out pretty much kill people with it?



You are simply wrong on almost all accounts, which normally is a very hard thing to do. Niremetal already took care of the JJ issue:

http://hoopdata.com/...ame=Joe Johnson

Kobe
http://hoopdata.com/...ame=Kobe Bryant



Dirk:
http://hoopdata.com/...e=Dirk Nowitzki


Roy:
http://hoopdata.com/...ame=Brandon Roy

Williams:
http://hoopdata.com/...=Deron Williams

Melo:
http://hoopdata.com/...Carmelo Anthony

Zach Randolph
http://www.hoopdata....e=Zach Randolph



The ONLY players of all of these to have a better efg% from mid range jumpers than 3 point are Kobe (but it is only barely so and he is still much better at the rim) and Randolph (but only this season). And the only player to score a majority of his fgs from mid range jumpers is Dirk.

Everyone else is better and scores more at either the rim or 3 point. You say that Zach Randolph is a "midrange monster?" The guy hits 28.9% from 10 to 15ft and 46% from 16-23 feet.

Melo a lethal scorer based on his "mid range prowess?" The guy hits 1.1 shots per game from 10-15ft, and 2.8 from 16-23 (7.8ppg) . Meanwhile he hits 5.1 shots at the rim, and 0.8 from the three point line (12.6 ppg).


And if you still refuse to see this, here's the league averages:

http://hoopdata.com/shotstats.aspx

NBA average:
at the rim: 60.3efg% 3.2 points
<10 feet: 44.1 efg% 0.8 points
10-15ft: 40efg%, 0.6 points
16-23ft: 39.7 efg%, 1.6 points
3 point: 52.4efg%, 2.1 points


Your points have been shown completely false by the data available. If this isn't enough to convince you, I don't know what is. The data shows you are wrong, the way NBA teams play defense shows you are wrong, every columnist thinks you are wrong. There is a reason good defensive teams emphasize preventing penetration and 3 point shots.

#45 Buzzard

Buzzard

    Hall of Fame

  • Squawkers
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,703 posts
  • Joined 08-July 04

Posted 07 January 2010 - 11:30 PM

Wow.

Both JJ and Crawford KILL PEOPLE when they take midrange jumpers

Kobe Bryant makes a living from midrange. So does Dirk. so does Brandon Roy. So does Deron Williams.

Carmelo is a lethal scorer based off of his midrange prowess.

Rip Hamilton's entire offensive game is the midrange jumper.

Zach Randolph, a guy that used to jack up his share of 3's, is now a midrange MONSTER.

If Iggy had a midrange shot, he'd be better than JJ.

Monta Ellis, Chris Bosh, Luou Deng . . .

Wow . . . seriously? You devalue the midrange jumper that much, even though you watch JJ night in and night out pretty much kill people with it?

You really need to check yourself with this proclamation. These guys make their living at the rim, in the paint, at the free throw line, and some from the 3pt line just as much as from 12 to 16 ft. In fact why these players are who they are is what ever part of their game you try and shut down, they have multiple options to go to. I really do not even know why this is a important argument when it comes to Woodys inability to get Smoove to stop shooting jumpers. I guess you will get around to making this prove some kind of point in Woody and Smooves defense...still waiting northcyde.