1/14/08 Box Score: Sonics 121 Lakers 123 (OT)
Posted on Tuesday, January 15th, 2008 at 1:07 am by Big Chris
A tough loss for the Supersonics after fighting so hard tonight.
The Sonics exposed the weak Lakers interior with the absence of Andrew Bynum who went out with a knee injury last night. Nick Collison was a beast tonight, leading the Sonics in both points (24) as well as rebounds (18). Pair that with Kurt Thomas’ 16 points 9 rebounds, and Chris Wilcox’s 12 points and 9 rebounds and you have 52 points 36 rebounds from the Sonics front line.
Kevin Durant added 19 points on 6 of 26 shooting. Luke Ridnour had 10 points and 11 assists. Earl Watson added 9 assists and a great strip of Kobe at the end of regulation. Wally Z provided some nice offense off the bench with 18 points, and Jeff Green added 14 points and 7 rebounds.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| LA Lakers | |||||||||||||||
| Name | Min | FG | 3Pt | FT | +/- | Off | Reb | Ast | TO | Stl | BS | BA | PF | Pts | |
| K. Bryant | G | 42:12 | 21-44 | 2-8 | 4-7 | -3 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 48 |
| D. Fisher | G | 33:42 | 5-10 | 2-3 | 0-0 | -7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 12 |
| K. Brown | C | 38:47 | 3-4 | 0-0 | 4-6 | -5 | 2 | 10 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 10 |
| L. Odom | F | 45:33 | 3-15 | 0-3 | 0-0 | -1 | 3 | 14 | 7 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 6 |
| L. Walton | F | 32:35 | 1-6 | 0-2 | 2-2 | -5 | 2 | 10 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 4 |
| T. Ariza | 23:33 | 3-6 | 1-2 | 2-2 | +14 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 9 | |
| J. Farmar | 19:23 | 5-6 | 2-3 | 0-0 | +9 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12 | |
| R. Turiaf | 18:26 | 3-5 | 0-0 | 8-9 | +3 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 6 | 14 | |
| J. Crittenton | 10:48 | 3-6 | 0-0 | 2-2 | +5 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 8 | |
| A. Bynum | DNP - Coach’s Decision | ||||||||||||||
| C. Karl | DNP - Coach’s Decision | ||||||||||||||
| S. Vujacic | DNP - Coach’s Decision | ||||||||||||||
| Totals | 47-102 | 7-21 | 22-28 | 9 | 45 | 24 | 8 | 6 | 4 | 9 | 19 | 123 | |||
| Percentages: | .461 | .333 | .786 | Team Rebounds: 14 |
|||||||||||
| Seattle | |||||||||||||||
| Name | Min | FG | 3Pt | FT | +/- | Off | Reb | Ast | TO | Stl | BS | BA | PF | Pts | |
| K. Durant | G | 41:18 | 6-26 | 2-6 | 5-6 | -5 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 19 |
| E. Watson | G | 28:42 | 3-7 | 0-0 | 0-0 | -7 | 0 | 2 | 9 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 6 |
| K. Thomas | C | 35:32 | 6-8 | 0-0 | 4-6 | +9 | 2 | 9 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 4 | 16 |
| N. Collison | F | 38:30 | 10-16 | 0-0 | 4-6 | -11 | 7 | 18 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 24 |
| J. Green | F | 36:24 | 6-12 | 0-2 | 2-2 | +5 | 2 | 7 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 14 |
| W. Szczerbiak | 30:39 | 7-11 | 3-4 | 1-2 | +1 | 0 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 18 | |
| L. Ridnour | 24:17 | 5-12 | 0-1 | 0-0 | +5 | 0 | 2 | 11 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 10 | |
| C. Wilcox | 16:42 | 6-9 | 0-0 | 0-1 | +6 | 3 | 9 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 12 | |
| D. West | 8:41 | 1-2 | 0-1 | 0-0 | -4 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | |
| J. Petro | 4:07 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 0-0 | -9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | |
| D. Wilkins | 0:05 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| M. Gelabale | DNP - Coach’s Decision | ||||||||||||||
| Totals | 50-104 | 5-14 | 16-23 | 14 | 55 | 28 | 12 | 5 | 9 | 4 | 21 | 121 | |||
| Percentages: | .481 | .357 | .696 | Team Rebounds: 8 |
|||||||||||
| Game Info |
|
Technical Fouls: None Attendance: 13,452 Officials: Leroy Richardson, Sean Corbin, Tom Washington |
January 15th, 2008 at 1:37 am
Can someone explain +/- to me.
Kobe Bryant -3 (48 points)
Trevor Ariza +14 (9 pts 5 rebs)
Durant -5 (6-26 shooting. 19 pts)
Collison -11 (24 and 18. 10-16 from the field)
??????
January 15th, 2008 at 1:51 am
“Can someone explain +/- to me. ”
That stats are my least favorite way to dissect the game.
Basketball is played by human beings, not robots. Numbers do not tell the whole story.
I missed the OT but listened to it on the radio while driving. Durant struggled tonight, no doubt about that. His shots were not there but did come through with that big 3 to push it to overtime.
Are we witnessing the inevitable “rookie wall”? Durant has pretty much carried this team so far. Think he is getting a little tired and beat up??
Wilcox and Ridnour shows if we want to be a running team, we better have these two in the line-up. I’ve been saying forever, RIdnour is our starting point guard right now. It ain’t even close.
Earl is a decent back-up guard because of the tempo he plays at. I got to give props for his defensive play at the end of regulation though.
I’m telling you, the more I watch Jeff Green, the more I like his aggressiveness and basketball IQ.
I am ok with this loss.
A hard fought battle with an “L”, that’s typical for rebuilding team. Go ahead blow, get D-Rose!!
January 15th, 2008 at 1:58 am
“I’m telling you, the more I watch Jeff Green, the more I like his aggressiveness and basketball IQ.”
What about Green’s IQ and aggressiveness in the four games prior to this one?
The Lakers fought pretty hard as well. After all, they were the undermanned and tired team, not the Sonics. +/- is pretty self-explanatory but I agree that its usefulness is limited. People will cite to the +/- stat whenever it supports their argument. When it doesn’t, people will predictably say that the stat is meaningless.
January 15th, 2008 at 2:11 am
How the West would look if the playoff started today:
1) Lakers
Warriors
2) Suns
3) Spurs
4) Blazers
5) Mavs
6) Hornets
7) Nuggets
Probably not what the “experts” thought the West would look like at this point in the season.
January 15th, 2008 at 3:07 am
Well, I just randomly changed the channel on my television over to TBS. As a reward for me being awake this at 1:50 a.m. in the morning, I was happily reminded of how hilarious the climax to Ace Ventura: Pet Detective is with the entire Ray Finkel storyline — especially the part of him being a post-op transsexual — and, of course, Jim Carrey’s (i.e., Ventura) “[...] Captain Winkie!” line. That, without a doubt, made up for the Seattle Supersonics’ disappointing loss last night.
Anyhow, what’s Scott Norwood up to these days?
January 15th, 2008 at 7:18 am
lakers had 19 fouls, sonics 21
lakers took 5 more foul shots, making 4 of them
limit the fouls in the act
drive to the rim more
Players need to be put in better positions to take better shots. The Sonics have trouble inbounding the ball, call a time out, and come back with a player catching the ball 25 feet from the basket in isolation, nice coaching. I would like to lay it on the players, but they appeared to be giving effort, they appear to have some talent, not a lot, so maybe the vet players calling out the coaches play calling has some weight, yes? The Lakers had the Sonics half court figured out, what there is of it, to the point where players are forced to create something out of nothing, 25 feet from the basket.
I would like to lay this loss on the rookie mistakes, but in the end was he running his own crappy play? Nope.
The cost reduction moves that have brought ending contracts and draft picks also bring us a situation where by the coach could fail and the owner not want to spend the money to bring in another, so, Scott Brooks, a person that did interview for the job, is there, if things go as poorly for the coach as they have for his “system”.
If the intended product of the “system” is to have zero player movement away from the ball in half court sets then it is working to perfection.
The Lakers got Kobe they ball on consecutive plays 17 feet from the rim so he could shoot 17 foot step back jumpers.
I did not see anything resembling that in overtime for the Sonics in the half court sets.
I hope that the evaluation period isn’t limited to just the players.
January 15th, 2008 at 7:29 am
the +/- is not very useful for a single game, but to see pairs, or units have many games with + numbers ( or -) does make you think about how and why they are plus, are they facing bench players and they happen to be starters that are always in at a given time to keep the team going, are they out performing equal competition because the skill sets have synergy? The raw number doesn’t tell the story, but it can help point to where to look.
January 15th, 2008 at 7:49 am
After a satisfactory performance by Luke Ridnour last night, Sam Presti ought to present Billy Knight with the following trade proposal.
http://realgm.com/src_checktrade.php?tradeid=4410526
Indeed, I wish that the Seattle Supersoncis would trade Luke Ridnour, Damien Wilkins, and Mouhamed Sene to the Atlanta Hawks for Tyronn Lue, Lorenzen Wright, and Anthony Johnson. In that case, Lue, Wright, and Johnson’s expiring contracts would be a wonderful acquisition from a financial standpoint.
If any front office executive in the NBA is idiotic enough to trade for Ridnour — who’s always been a subpar shooter (Career: 41.7% FG%; 45.3% eFG%; 50.5% TSP%) and, of course, is an utterly abysmal defender — then it’s probably Knight.
January 15th, 2008 at 8:55 am
I saw something kinda weird out there last night: the guys coming in after injuries (and thus threatening the positions of others) may (or may not) have lit a fire under their asses. Wilcox comes in and Collison goes off, ridnour plays and watson pushes the ball much more and locks down on d. Honestly this was an uncomplete team for the last 6 or so games. When ridnour plays it quickens up the whole team (ie durant and green running their butts off and getting easy early buckets) so then when earl gets in everyone is running and he kept it up. And collison showed his scrappiness and strength and rebounding as if to say “wilcox is great but can he do THIS?!” I liked the team we say last night and i think with our starters back in it opens up our rotations and gives us a chance to get up and down the court quicker. Ridnour adds a lot to this team, he showed it last night and the worst thing to do right now is try and trade him (AK!) when he just showed us that him and watson (with enough energy) can keep this team running as opposed to the molasses plays that result from earl doing his half court, all shot-clock bit.
Biggest reason for success?! NO WILKINS DOWN THE STRETCH!!!!!
January 15th, 2008 at 10:00 am
And that my friends is why, love him or hate him, Kobe Bryant is one of the top two players in the NBA. When the guy is on fire, there just isn’t much you can do. He can create his own shot, at any time. Hand in his face, doesn’t matter.
Of course, there are days when he’ll miss 8 out of 10 jump shots, but last night they were all going in. Good battle by the Sonics. Good to see guys playing hard, though I still gotta say, our offense looks about as plain vanilla as it comes. Top of the circle, pick and roll while everyone else stands around on the baseline and watches. just baffling that the team doesn’t seem to be able to execute anything more complicated than that on a consistent basis.
Collison was a beast on the O-glass. When he plays within himself he’s solid. Really took advantage of the Lakers weak front line. Nice to see Wilcox athleticism back in there.
We really should be able to get a good piece from a playoff contender that needs inside help for Thomas before the trade deadline. The Lakers could sure use him, however it sounds like they are calling the Chris Webber hotline, trying to move to the top of his list.
Anyways, good showing from alot of players and our draft position contiues to improve. Get on the horn Presti, you’ve got work to do!
January 15th, 2008 at 10:00 am
I thing the biggest reason for success was that Wilkins didn’t play more than 5 secs!! That made me the happiest. The guy is terrible. I was really impressed with the way Luke played last night. He was really good at finding the open man and I agree that it may have pushed Earl to play better. I think the most disappointing player right now is Delonte West. He has really digressed since the beginning of the season. His shot is so far off and it seems like he is afraid to even shoot at times.
It was a fun game to watch, too bad the rapist had to hit that winner.
January 15th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Mr. Baker is right that +/- is better look at over long run than a individual game. A game sees many runs and in a small sample being in or out of a run or two more or less than your teammates can swing the team +/- a lot. If a player was on court with a high negative +/- some or all the players likely were responsible but some of it is chance and at times the other team just gets hot or cold and so do you.
The adjusted for player quality on the court team +/- will be one of many tools Presti should use in the final evaluation- along with a full appraisal of what each player did individually.
Durant was probbly influenced by the Kobe dual. Many young stars go thru that. Shooters usually lack a conscience and believe the next shots are going in but shooting around 25% is different than shooting 35-40%. Especially when virtually all your teammates are hitting 50+%. He should have taken less shots in the second half in my opinion.
January 15th, 2008 at 10:24 am
+/- is about as effective as the BCS calculations for college football. It is a ridiculous stat that has no place anywhere. As far as Durant goes…I love how his “off” night still brings 19 points and during an “off” night they still almost win in OT against the Lake-show. Or during an “off” night he still hits a big 3 late in the game. Imagine what this kid’s average or stellar nights are gonna be in a year or two. I am gonna keep saying it till I am blue in the face….we just need to trust Presti. I am excited to hear his thoughts on this next draft. Or at least to hear from sources what his thought process is.
January 15th, 2008 at 10:46 am
K Bryant is not as good as the pundits say. Yes he scored 48 points last night, but he took 44 shots and 7 free throws to get 48 points. That aint so good - it is below average for an NBA player. 2 rebounds? 2 assists, and 1 turnover. C’mon. On top of it, he did most of his damage covered by Durant. Green gave him a much more difficult time. I was encouraged by Green’s defense on Bryant and have a glimmer of hope that he can be a SF defensive stopper in this league - because he just is not a PF.
January 15th, 2008 at 10:47 am
Sam Presti would be stupid to trade ridnour he is going to be a top-tier player in a year or two, he’s just not motivated right. I say get rid of damien and sene immediately, shoot give us sue bird for those two.
January 15th, 2008 at 10:50 am
Joshua, like you I am also a member of the “asinine lovefest”.
Durant might even win the Rookie of the Year honors, pretty good for a 19-yr. old “piss poor”, “stat stuffing”, “moron” with an “overrated skill set”. Of course let’s not even get started with “fatally flawed” J.Green, “so be it”, “albeit”. . . whatever.
“Y’all”, “blinded optimists” just continue to trust the “alleged genius”, as they embark on the 2009-10 season, “so be it”, “albeit”. . . damn it!
January 15th, 2008 at 11:00 am
“K Bryant is not as good as the pundits say. ”
Did you watch the game? Kobe took over and won the game for them. He hit almost every shot down the stretch and hit the game winner.
January 15th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Make that Kobe “duel” of course.
I don’t know what coaches say to Durant about his shooting frequency before, during or afer a game but I would have talked to him about it.
He has to make adjustment to NBA. He isnt the only shooter or one of only 2 or 3 like in high school or college. There were plenty of other options last night. A little more accuracy or a little more discretion on his part they win the game.
But at this point wins no longer mean as much. They still are a measuring stick of progress but their impact of draft rank also matters. As a fan a 20 or 30 win season is close to feeling the same.
January 15th, 2008 at 11:06 am
“+/- is about as effective as the BCS calculations for college football. It is a ridiculous stat that has no place anywhere. ”
There is value in +/- if you know how to use it. There are things it can’t tell you, like any stat it has its deficiencies.
Durant’s shot selection last night was awful but it was still uniformly bad all the way around. All our PGs were gunning that straight on 18 fter last night. That they were making them does not mean they were good shots to take.
It did appear that with Luke in the fast break was worlds better and for the most part I thought he did a spectacular job of getting guys the ball in ways they could use it. The ball movement was also sharper.
I think AKs trade proposal makes sense but with that said, he isn’t going out on much of a limb advocating clearing cap space because it doesn’t involve figuring out who the team could sign with said space if they had it.
January 15th, 2008 at 11:06 am
McCoy’s right that overall Bryant did not have an efficient night. But it was near average and he was clutch enough. And with Bynum out and Odom stonecold taking a large quantity of shots was more understandable. Still they bearly won and many nights it would not have been enough.
January 15th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Statistically Anthony Johnson is having a good year. I don’t think Atlanta would give him up or mess with their current player mix/chemistry. They are playoff ranked. I never saw why Atlanta would be interested in Ridnour from a play standpoint- to date. Marketing I can see the idea but I doubt they’d actually see him sell many exta tickets there. They are in bottom 10 on pace. If Luke is best in fast pace why would they go for him? Maybe when ownership is settled and maybe if they change coaches and GM and playing style. The owners probably like their current chances - and the expiring contracts.
January 15th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Steve is right. +/- is one set of data in a large pool of data that helps you look at player performance.
Basketball is a team sport. Great individual players can’t win every game for a poor team. Good teams with mediocre individual players can win more games than expected.
Plus/Minus is simply a tool to determine the impact a player has while they are on the floor. It looks at the point differential of the game while the player is on and off the floor. It is not particularly useful in small sample sets (neither is most data), but it gives analysts a feel for individual impact as a part of the team.
Over time it can indicate trends for role players that might otherwise be missed. Single game +/- does not tell you much, but over the course of a season can guide you to look at a player in a different way.
If I see a player who consistently has shown lower scoring by the opponent while he was on the floor despite no blocks or steals…I might take a look at tape to watch altered shots, team defense (does he double at the right time, etc) and then if I am looking for a particular role, I might target that player in free agency. (I wouldn’t put him on my fantasy team though.)
I might have a strong offensive 2 guard who when I look at player pairs I determine the TEAM is more effective when he is paired with the quicker, more fundamental post player since he gets beat on the perimeter a lot, and the long bulky post player can’t help. Then I can review tape to see if I am right.
No stat is useful on its own. The point of statistical analysis in sports is to get an advantage on what to have the experts look at in tape or on the floor. Every edge matters to them. To the average fan it looks like useless numbers, but that is because the average fan likely lacks the full perspective to make the data valuable.
January 15th, 2008 at 11:21 am
“Can someone explain +/- to me.
Kobe Bryant -3 (48 points)
Trevor Ariza +14 (9 pts 5 rebs)
Durant -5 (6-26 shooting. 19 pts)
Collison -11 (24 and 18. 10-16 from the field)
?????? ”
Collison’s big negatives came in the second quarter where he was teamed with Petro and West.
(Note Petro’s -9 in 4 minutes).
January 15th, 2008 at 11:22 am
On top of it, he did most of his damage covered by Durant.
That’s just plain not true. I watched the game and particularly watched who was guarding KoMe and Green was matched up on KoMe way more than Durant was.
January 15th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Despite the loss the game was entertaining and I enjoyed myself at the Key last night. There was a massive amount of stupid Laker fans (one girl drunk girl kept screaming how she only knows Kobe and no one else on the team) but the crowd was on their feet for that last remaining minutes. What the hell was Luke thinking with that shot towards the end? I usually knock on Nick but man did he play well last night. I didn’t like Green on Kobe, and PJ did his tinkering too much with the lineup.
January 15th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Notwithstanding any injuries, trades or roster moves that may occur, I think it’s time for PJ to at least plan on rolling out this rotation the rest of the year:
PG: Ridnour (32), Watson (16)
SG: Durant (36), West (8)
SF: Green (36), Wally (16)
PF: Wilcox (32), Collison (16)
C: Thomas (24), Collison (16), Petro (8)
January 15th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Green’s D on Kobe was more than I could ask for from any rookie. I foresee green really taking some pride in his D over the years and shutting down guys left and right.
January 15th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Another complaint, why is Wally inbounding the ball with the final 4 seconds? They should have had Green inbounding so Wally or another shooter could get a shot in, instead Nick ends up hitting a brick.
January 15th, 2008 at 11:33 am
well, not to go AK on you, but I have said many times that as long as Tyron Lue breaths there is a trading partner that would take Watson (or Ridnour) if all you wanted to do is dump salary and move a player. I have also mentioned for a couple years that Wilkins did not want to come back and that a trade to the Hawks would make him happy, and that coupling him with Watson for Lue and anything is something worth looking into.
Why Watson?
Between all 3 pg’s I think Luke could deal with coming off the bench after the Sonics draft a starting pg. West can do most of what Watson does for the rest of the year and then he is a FA. Earl has not yet been of the mind to make the best of not starting for the many teams he has played for. I think that here, as his next stop, there is a honeymoon period where he does whatever is asked in hopes that he can gain the starting spot. Once faced with the chance that he will not he starts putting on the Earl show. He could have a more productive year if he was some place else.
Clearly, I am no expert, just what it looks like to me.
January 15th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Just about anybody on Kobe isn’t going to matter when he is on. My goodness gracious folks.
As far as +/- goes. Again, I would love to see some similar statistical analysis done in baseball of guys like Luis Sojo and Scott Brosius…the guys were never studs statistically, however, they had an ability to win that was not something you could chart and graph. The same goes in any sport, the real deal is not in the paper tiger poaching, but in the intangables that comprise winners. On any given day, any team can win any game.
January 15th, 2008 at 11:57 am
While I am not totally up to speed on the baseball research related to “clutch” hitting or pitching or whatever, I think it has found that there really is not such a thing as clutch. I suspect the same with basketball or any sport. I think 82 games did a study a few years ago and found Kobe to not be so-called clutch (he looks clutch sometimes because he ALWAYS takes the last shot, some go in, others do not). Was he clutch when Watson stripped him at the end of regulation?
I would be really interested to see how Kobe did vs Green as compared to Durant last night. My watching told me Kobe got way more space for his jumper and more went in when Durant was on him (% wise, not total), but that is just my impression, not based on the stats of the matchup.
January 15th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
My watching told me Kobe got way more space for his jumper and more went in when Durant was on him
Just for reference, almost all of Kobe’s jump shots down the stretch last night were made with Green guarding him. Green had a hand in his face on almost all of them, but Kobe was still draining every one.
January 15th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
- Ridnour played good in stretches…some of the shots he took in the OT were questionable.
Our offense still makes getting open shots more or less impossible…
- The number one thing that Durant needs to learn is how to create space for his jumper. Kobe can take that jab step and create space and then elevate for the open jumpshot…Durant cannot…he still seems pretty timid out there to me.
I would also say that him being timid is a likely effect of the role the coaching staff is asking him to play. Green is very agressive, but that is because he is required to be agressive by playing SF and more inside the key. By allowing Durant to just literally FLOAT around the 3pt line we are really getting in the way of his development.
January 15th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
xerces, I thought that too at the end, why the hell would wally world inbound when his only strength is the jumpshot
January 15th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
“The number one thing that Durant needs to learn is how to create space for his jumper. Kobe can take that jab step and create space and then elevate for the open jumpshot…Durant cannot…he still seems pretty timid out there to me. ”
Yeah if Durant had that jab step move he would be pretty much impossible to guard. He is already pretty good at pulling up for the J and has an advantage over most defenders due to his height but a way to create a bit more space around himself would be nice.
“xerces, I thought that too at the end, why the hell would wally world inbound when his only strength is the jumpshot ”
Probably by design so inbounds play could be a give and go. If Green is the inbounds passer then LA only has to deny Wally the ball & Seattle has no other effective long distance shooters on the floor.
January 15th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
“Again, I would love to see some similar statistical analysis done in baseball of guys like Luis Sojo and Scott Brosius…the guys were never studs statistically, however, they had an ability to win that was not something you could chart and graph.”
Playing on a stacked Yankees team certainly helped that perception. The phrase ability to win implies that they were largely responsible for their team’s wins. All those two were really asked to do is play minor roles & not make mistakes, more so than create runs. They were good at that.
Bill James on the ‘clutch hitting’ debate:
http://tinyurl.com/2rjzjx
January 15th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Playing on a stacked Yankees team certainly helped that perception. The phrase ability to win implies that they were largely responsible for their team’s wins. All those two were really asked to do is play minor roles & not make mistakes, more so than create runs. They were good at that.
- What I find interesting is how guys like Scott Brosius (Darren Erstad)…who just “know how to win”…didn’t have that skill throughout their entire career…since I don’t think that this is something that can be “learned” it would seem that these players would be on wining teams throughout their careers.
January 15th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
“Another complaint, why is Wally inbounding the ball with the final 4 seconds?”
The most dangerous player on the inbounds pass is the player inbounding the ball.
Remember the playoffs about 8 years ago, Chuck Person dusted his moldy self off the bench with about 2 second left, tossed the inbounds pass to someone, took one step inbounds got the ball back and drained the three for the win.
Desmond Mason had a sweet alley-oop dunk against I beleive the Clippers where he was the inbounds passer.
Because Wally can not create much for himself at this point, shoots a solid percentage with his feet set and because he’s a smart overall player he’s the best choice to be the inbounds passer
January 15th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
In 4:07 Johan Petro was (-9) WOW, that is impressive in the totally wrong way. Johan Petro: Poster Boy for the Athletic Goods without the IQ. Free Sene, he couldn’t possibly be worse….could he???
January 15th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
The one question I had for both of the late game situations…where it seems like you are going to take one shot for the win…what is the point of having Kurt Thomas on the floor. The guy has a decent jumper, but most teams know they don’t have to worry about him taking a shot. If you know you won’t have to play defense again…what is the point of having a guy who is primarily a defensive player out there??
January 15th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
myk, and anybody else, Kobe’s jab step last night started with him often catching the ball 15-18 feet from the basket to start his moves, they used screens to get him the ball that close. Durant was stepping away from the crowd to get the ball often times above the 3 point line in the center of the floor. There’s little threat of a high % jumper from there so there isn’t much point in jab step to back the defender away from you, Durant is already 22 feet from the basket. Durant’s step back jumper is pretty nice, if he wasn’t stepping back 22 feet from the basket it would go in a hellova lot more.
The Lakers do a good job getting the ball to Kobe within a range for him to work within, the Sonics give the ball to players on the outer limits of their range and expect them to work their way in, the defender gets some kind of advantage there.
The “system” blowsgoats so far.
January 15th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
“I think 82 games did a study a few years ago and found Kobe to not be so-called clutch (he looks clutch sometimes because he ALWAYS takes the last shot, some go in, others do not). Was he clutch when Watson stripped him at the end of regulation?”
I don’t have the stats/data, but here is my bet: Kobe was not so clutch a few years ago, tho’ he’d ALWAYS take the last shot (selfish bastard). However, I’m guessing that we’d find that over the past couple of years he has shown big improvement in ‘clutch’ performance, just from experience.
In other words, that killer instinct is learned on the floor through trial and failure.
Durant (selfish bastard) seems anti-clutch right now. Every game he’s blown with a poor shot when it counts may be a game put away a few years from now.
I don’t think he’ll merely age into the ‘killer instinct.’ But he’ll get there by burying this year’s team with low shooting percentages (especially when the game is on the line).
(I do remember Durant icing a game with a pretty three pointer earlier in the season: I forget which game that was).
January 15th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Anyone here still think Ridnour isn’t clearly the best point guard on the roster?
Also, while Kobe may be the best player in the NBA in terms of his ability to perform individually in a given situation (such as hitting a game-winning bucket), he has yet to demonstrate the ability to consistently raise the level of his team’s performance as a whole to a championship level. Until he proves that he is merely the best one-on-one player in the NBA; the honor for best overall player still goes to goes to Tim Duncan.
January 15th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Luke Ridnour makes the defense move and work. The Sonics are easy to defend when the ball is in Watson or Wilkins hands in the half court. The half court offensive movement with Luke on the floor is night and day compared to Watson.
Luke Ridnour: Pinball
Earl Watson: Lawn Bowling
January 15th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Big_Worm Says:
“Anyone here still think Ridnour isn’t clearly the best point guard on the roster?
Also, while Kobe may be the best player in the NBA in terms of his ability to perform individually in a given situation (such as hitting a game-winning bucket), he has yet to demonstrate the ability to consistently raise the level of his team’s performance as a whole to a championship level. Until he proves that, he is merely the best one-on-one player in the NBA; the honor for best overall player still goes to goes to Tim Duncan.”
My sentiments exactly.
January 15th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
As long as Luke trying to drive & dish I am OK with his performance, as you say it forces the D to react. Too many times when PG dribbles from the wing to just beyond the FT line and then chucks a shot. Regardless of whether or not the shot goes in it is a badly used possession; only 1 guy gets to touch the ball, at least 3 other guys on the floor aren’t moving which means their defenders aren’t having to work at all either.
Don’t know if that’s a Westhead invention or what but it’s bogus.
January 15th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Any insider news on the arena? The News Tribune article today is pretty depressing..
January 15th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Arena News/Speculation over at http://www.supersonicsoul.com
January 15th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
I don’t have the stats/data, but here is my bet: Kobe was not so clutch a few years ago, tho’ he’d ALWAYS take the last shot (selfish bastard). However, I’m guessing that we’d find that over the past couple of years he has shown big improvement in ‘clutch’ performance, just from experience.
- To be honest…watching Kobe in the OT I wasn’t all that scared. He did hit those last two shots…but he also missed a few wide open shots and also a FT. When you take 44 shots a few are bound to go into the hoop.
As long as Luke trying to drive & dish I am OK with his performance, as you say it forces the D to react. Too many times when PG dribbles from the wing to just beyond the FT line and then chucks a shot.
- I still think that Luke is better than Earl. However, he didn’t play very good in the OT. Kept driving into the lane and then not knowing what he wanted to do with the ball.
January 15th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Kept driving into the lane and then not knowing what he wanted to do with the ball.
I think that was a combination of things. It would help if the other players on the baseline and opposite side wing would cut to the basket or find an opening for a shot rather than standing around watching Luke drive to the bucket. Kind of leaves the PG out the dry if the center comes over to pick him up and nobody on our team takes advantage of the opening.
It was good to see our PG finally penetrating and putting some pressure on the opposing defense though, despite the couple of times that Luke got stuck making a bad decision after getting in the paint.
January 15th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
“What about Green’s IQ and aggressiveness in the four games prior to this one?”
Does IQ go up and down game by game?
January 15th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
I won’t dig up the specific clutch shooting numbers on a non Sonic but I do know that Kobe’s clutch shooting in last 5 minutes of game have been considerably less than his reputation as the greatest clutch shooter in the league in a number of years (not all and not this year). It is learned and he had to relearn it some after Shaq left. “Super clutchness” on game winners or shots in last minute are a different breed than the broader just last 5 minutes.
In general Durant is very clutch at end of game so far- 62% eFG.
http://www.82games.com/0708/07SEA4E.HTM
he is not good in regular shotclock “crunch”- just 35%.
http://www.82games.com/0708/07SEA4A.HTM
The numbers suggest that right now he should share more in main part of game and take over when he is most warmed up / in flow and the game is on the line.
January 15th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Wally and West probably continue to get more time than courtsense’s preferred allocation (and Green and Durant somewhat lighter) but otherwise I think that is close to the way it goes down for awhile until a trade or they start to play Swift, Sene, Gelabale more nearer end of season.
January 15th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Luke Ridnour is flat-out terrible. Whether he is better than Watson or not, is a moot point. Neither one of them is worth a darn.
This team needs a point guard, as well as a center and a shooting guard. They have 4 forwards who are ok (Collison & Wilcox), or might be ok in a few years (Durant, Green).
Bob Weiss on KJR today said a couple of interesting things:
1) Lebron James is better than Kobe Bryant right now
2) The Sonics might be pretty good in FOUR YEARS.
January 15th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
fLuke can be, at times, the best offensive PG on the roster. He is always the worst defensive PG on the roster. Taking both sides of the ball into consideration, he’s equally mediocre & uninspiring as Earl & Delonte.
January 15th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
The Big Dipper says:
Whether he is better than Watson or not, is a moot point.
No it’s not. Point guard play affects the development of our younger players, how quickly the new running system takes shape and the overall cohesiveness of the team now and in the future.
Also, assuming we trade one of them for cap fodder and keep the other as the current starter and future backup, we want to the better of the two and the one that fits better in our system.
It is absolutely not a moot point. The only people who say that are the ones who don’t want to admit that Luke is clearly preferable to Earl.
The Big Dipper says:
Lebron James is better than Kobe Bryant right now.
I agree 100% with Weiss. Lebron sees the big picture and makes his teammates better. The Cavs as a whole are better than the sum of their parts, and it’s because of Lebron. Kobe can’t see past himself and his ego, therefore his team can’t take the next step.
January 15th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
1) Lebron James is better than Kobe Bryant right now
- Congrats to Bob Weiss for saying a player with a near 30 PER is the best player in the league…in other news…the sky is blue.
January 15th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Not that this is some kind of exact science, but I think if you put LeBron on the Lakers and Kobe on the Cavs, the Lakers would be even better, and the Cavs even worse. As I noted yesterday, I’d take LeBron and Duncan over Kobe any day.
January 15th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Luke is not even good enough to be a long-term backup point guard. I should have said the Supes need 2 point guards.
To say that it makes any difference in Durant’s development which point guard he plays with this season is just foolish. Leaking out on the fast break and making breakaway dunks won’t do anything whatsoever for Durant’s (or anyone’s) “development.” The best thing I have seen for Durant’s development was in a recent game when he ran 4 or 5 pick and rolls with Nick Collison. Ridnour did not even play in that game.
The most important thing for Durant is being able to hit jump shots. And he has to be able to hit jump shots no matter who passes him the ball. How good an outside shooter Durant becomes has nothing to do with what point guard he is playing with, no matter how much Jason Kidd lovers want to believe that.
January 15th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Myk says:
Congrats to Bob Weiss for saying a player with a near 30 PER is the best player in the league…in other news…the sky is blue.
It’s not like there’s a clear consensus on this. A lot of people think Kobe is the best. Snapper picked Kobe and said all of the player pick Kobe. Calabro picked Duncan.
January 15th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
I just brought up the Weiss comment on LeBron, because I have read on this thread that some people think Kobe is the best player in the NBA. I think Snapper said that during the game last night, also. So, it is not universally agreed that LeBron is better than Kobe, even if it seems rather obvious to most.
January 15th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
tBD - I strongly disagree. When Earl’s in there the other players stand around. When Luke’s in there people move, set picks, cut, square up… and the passing is contagious.
January 15th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
The team also had an opportunity to go for a two for one when they had the ball with forty-five seconds left.
Leaving the foul to give on the table was highly questionable. Was that Green’s supposed high IQ at work or the coaching staff’s failure to inform its players of the foul situation? I don’t know if any member in the media asked about the foul to give. The Lakers took a foul to give before the final Sonics possession when Kobe astutely fouled Kevin Durant.
There was also a critical missed over the back call on Kwame Brown in the overtime with just over a minute left.
January 15th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Alex, PJ said last night he should have called the timeout and played 2-for-1 but he wanted to save the timeout. A clear mistake in hindsight.
January 15th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
I think the consensus among the players with respect to the LeBron and Kobe debate would easily be in favor of Kobe. LeBron has even admitted that Kobe is the best player in the game. Among coaches and broadcasters, the answer is probably split.
Myk, if we’re relying upon PER as the sole basis for our conclusions, is Amare Stoudemire better than Tim Duncan? I think even Phoenix Suns fans would not answer that question in the affirmative.
January 15th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Somebody should ask the players who they’d rather have on their team - LeBron or Kobe - that’s another topic altogether.
January 15th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
“How good an outside shooter Durant becomes has nothing to do with what point guard he is playing with, no matter how much Jason Kidd lovers want to believe that. ”
There is an art to getting your teammates the ball in spots on the floor where they can be effective and hitting them in rhythm. I think anyone who has ever played ball at even pickup level would agree with that.
How good a shooter Durant ultimately becomes is up to how much work he puts into it … but to say a good distributor wouldn’t be a factor in that is mistaken IMO.
January 15th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
“Somebody should ask the players who they’d rather have on their team - LeBron or Kobe - that’s another topic altogether.”
I think the answer may be closer than you think. My answer last year would have been LeBron James but Kobe has been incredibly unselfish for the most part this season. Shawn Marion, a guy that has played with Steve Nash for the last three seasons, stated that he would have had no problem playing with Kobe and welcomed a trade to the Lakers in the offseason. In fact, it seems that more players (Jermaine O’Neal, Jason Kidd) have been open to the idea of going to the Lakers than going to the Cavs even though getting to the Finals with the Lakers is a much taller task than getting to the Finals with the Cavs.
January 15th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Give Luke 20-25 minutes a game while he returns to full health and watch our TOTAL assist numbers go up. Luke had 11 assists but he was also the pass that lead to the pass for an easy bucket. He is like a “Passing Virus.” Everyone moves better and more because they know they are going to get the ball where they can score. Wally didn’t have to go one on one like he is at the YMCA, the ball was delivered to him. I will admit that Earl looked good in transition last night but the half court flow doesn’t exist when he is in there. We are trying to defend but don’t have the personnel to do it or they are rookies. The other team scores we stagnate on offense and give the ball back. With Luke on the floor the defense is still lacking overall but at least we have a better chance of getting a bucket on the other end in the half court when we get scored on.
January 15th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
I think we can agree that Luke and Earl each have their faults, and that neither is the answer going forward.
However, the biggest differences I see between the two are that Luke is more creative off the dribble, and he has better touch on his passes, especially in transition and on lobs. Earl tends to throw away lobs and the more difficult passes.
January 15th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Courtsense, you’ll love this PER note: Pau Gasol had the seventh highest PER in the league last year.
January 15th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
MC Nuggit Says:
fLuke can be, at times, the best offensive PG on the roster. He is always the worst defensive PG on the roster. Taking both sides of the ball into consideration, he’s equally mediocre & uninspiring as Earl & Delonte.
On the money. But hey, who cares about defense (other than the coaching staff)?
January 15th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
“How good an outside shooter Durant becomes has nothing to do with what point guard he is playing with, no matter how much Jason Kidd lovers want to believe that. ”
Earl passes the ball where people are or behind them. Luke delivers the ball to your hands and where you are going to be. When Durant or Wally come off a screen Earl will put the ball almost behind them. The ball isn’t in position to shoot which gives the defender that fraction of a second to contest. You can really see it when they run that semi-weave and the ball always is going to the back hand. Players have to find Earl’s passes. Luke finds people with his passes which will lead to other passes because you can react instead of trying to catch the ball. Those are the type of things Luke does that doesn’t show up in Box Scores, Pers or “Hollinger’s snooty my stats are better than yours.”
January 15th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
the worst thing about Earl is, people don’t bother to move because they know that Earl won’t see it until it’s too late and the defense has already reacted. The don’t roll because they know early can’t see/can’t make the pass. They just stand around waiting for Earl to shoot, or to throw it out to Wilkins on the wing so he can go one-on-one. When Luke is in there is motion.
January 15th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
However, the biggest differences I see between the two are that Luke is more creative off the dribble, and he has better touch on his passes, especially in transition and on lobs. Earl tends to throw away lobs and the more difficult passes.
- At this point Luke’s biggest flaw is that he is finding a way to get into the lane but then he doesn’t know what he wants to do once he gets there. A couple of his shots at the end of OT were pretty horrible.
Myk, if we’re relying upon PER as the sole basis for our conclusions, is Amare Stoudemire better than Tim Duncan? I think even Phoenix Suns fans would not answer that question in the affirmative.
- Being that there is a 2 pt diff between Amare and Tim and a 5 pt diff between LeBron and Kobe it is a not as easy of a comparison as you are making it out to be. Duncan also seems to be much more willing to coast beacuse he is on a team of other good players. LeBron and Kobe are both in charge of lifting average talented teams to greater heights…and LeBron does it better.
January 15th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
fLuke can be, at times, the best offensive PG on the roster. He is always the worst defensive PG on the roster. Taking both sides of the ball into consideration, he’s equally mediocre & uninspiring as Earl & Delonte.
- I’ve watched enough of the three of them that I just don’t agree that Luke is farther behind Earl in D than Earl is behind Luke on O…also, I think a poor offensive PG hurts you much more than a poor defensive PG because he has the ball in his hands so much. Like it or not you could gameplan to protect Luke from his defensive issues (see: all other non-athletic pgs)…but how do you game plan to protect your offense from a bad offensive PG??
January 15th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
http://www.82games.com/feeders.htm
I know I was making fun of Stats before but this is from 04-05 the last time Luke saw consistent minutes as the starter. He needs to be on the floor.
January 15th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Ok, maybe this is a good time to bring up pet peeve of mine: assists don’t mean diddly. What difference does it make if a FG is assisted or not? You get the same number of points for a FG whether it had as assist or not, right? The announcers who like to comment on how many assists there have been on how many fg’s just make me laugh. Who cares? Just put the ball in the basket. If someone passed the ball to you before you shot it, great. If you dribbled it for 15 seconds before you shot it, and the shot went in, great, also.
Makes no difference. A basket is a basket.
You get zero points on the scoreboard for an assist.
January 15th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Ok, maybe this is a good time to bring up pet peeve of mine: assists don’t mean diddly. What difference does it make if a FG is assisted or not? You get the same number of points for a FG whether it had as assist or not, right? The announcers who like to comment on how many assists there have been on how many fg’s just make me laugh. Who cares? Just put the ball in the basket. If someone passed the ball to you before you shot it, great. If you dribbled it for 15 seconds before you shot it, and the shot went in, great, also.
- Nah…there probably isn’t ever a good time to say something ignorant like this…some assists might be cheap…but for someone who thinks FG% is the end-all-be-all you’d think you’d understand that having more assists is almost always a direct relation to the number of easy buckets created.
January 15th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
You get zero points on the scoreboard for an assist.
- And actually…you are guaranteed to get 2 if not 3 points on the scoreboard for every assist that you ever make…by definition an assist will increase the number on the scoreboard 2 or 3 points.
January 15th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Dipper, I see where you’re coming from, and I always appreciate a radical, alternative point of view…but doesn’t an assist reveal the ease with which the basket is scored, and in a roundabout way, the quality of the basket? Basketball is, after all, a team game. Just a thought -
January 15th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Not really discussed today…Chris Wilcox played somewhat decently..
January 15th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
an assist can be worth 4 points if Kobe kicks his legs out at a defender while shooting a 3 and Violette Palmer is the ref.
Ha!
January 15th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Dipper, the bigger issue may be with how scorekeepers sometimes award assists. Some of them can get very liberal with what they consider an assist.
January 15th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
-” To be honest…watching Kobe in the OT I wasn’t all that scared. He did hit those last two shots…but he also missed a few wide open shots and also a FT. When you take 44 shots a few are bound to go into the hoop.”
Did none of you realize that Kobe was playing with the flu last night? I guess the Seattle broadcast didn’t know or failed to mention it. I got the L.A broadcast and during the pregame they mentioned how under the weather he was.
January 15th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Not really discussed today…Chris Wilcox played somewhat decently..
Agreed. Despite Wilcox’s lackadaisical attidute on defense, his athleticism and ability to finish around the bucket does bring an element to the Sonics offense that is missing when he’s not on the floor.
January 15th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
“Alex, PJ said last night he should have called the timeout and played 2-for-1 but he wanted to save the timeout. A clear mistake in hindsight. ”
I mentioned this during the game thread right after that possession but wasn’t sure if we still had a timeout. If we didn’t have anything by way of a fastbreak, I thought PJ should’ve called a timeout to draw something up. Instead PJ let them go for it and we ended with a sloppy looking play.
January 15th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Dipper, the bigger issue may be with how scorekeepers sometimes award assists. Some of them can get very liberal with what they consider an assist.
I don’t think that is the issue. What is at issue here is whether someone going one on five and scoring a bucket is going to do it as efficiently over the long haul as a team who passes the ball well, taking advantage of the defense and gets easier buckets.
I think most people who have played the game or watched a great PG in action realize that good passes (assists) tend to lead to much better quality scoring opportunities than an individual going one on five all the time.
It is just a basic fundamental of the game. Good passing leads to much easier and higher percentage scoring opportunities.
January 15th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
There is no assist without a made basket. You can make the best pass in the world, and if the guy you pass to blows the easy bucket, there is no assist. It is the MADE SHOT that makes an assist. There are NO ASSISTS without a made shot.
There are many made shots without assists. There are many great passes which do not turn into assists.
Therefore, which is more important — the made shot, or the assist?
It probably would have been better if I had said, you don’t get points on the scoreboard for a great pass. You only get points on the scoreboard for made baskets, or free throws.
Give me guys who can shoot. You can have great passers, but if they don’t have good shooters to pass to, you’re not going to win many games.
And it makes NO difference how many assists a team has. If the Sonics shot 40-80 with no 3-pointers and 10 assists, or 40-80 with no 3-pointers and 35 assists, what difference would it make? (ft and fta the same in both cases)
Wilcox was great. Why didn’t he get more minutes?
January 15th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Alex Chan Says:
“the bigger issue may be with how scorekeepers sometimes award assists. Some of them can get very liberal with what they consider an assist.”
Classic! Like when Stockton would toss the ball to Malone on the blocks, and Karl would hold the ball, take a dribble, bump the defender with his ass, turn around, and shoot a fallaway J - and Johnny always got the assist at the Delta Center.
January 15th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Good point Myk, having Weezy in there seemed like it kinda pepped the whole team up a little bit. Plus he actually looked like he had some touch around the basket, for like the second time this season.
January 15th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
courtsense Says:
doesn’t an assist reveal the ease with which the basket is scored, and in a roundabout way, the quality of the basket?
Should those easy putbacks by Thomas and Collison in OT be registered as assists from Ridnour? Luke made it pretty easy for them by shooting those bricks.
[/sarcasm]
January 15th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
On Luke…. I advocate giving him 30+ minutes a night for a month or so & see how he does - give him a chance to show whether or not he has improved his game from last season. He has been hurt most of the time since the beginning of training camp. Last night was his first game in about 2 weeks & he did well. He has not had much of a chance to play in PJ’s system or with KD.
Maybe he will show that he has not improved much & what we have seen in the past few years is what we will get. But sometimes young point guards blossem & grow after their first few years in the league. He will never be a superstar but maybe he can be a capable starter. I hope PJ gives him some run just to see if he can find a rythm and see if he has improved his game or not.
Jeff Green….. Giuve him 30+ minutes a night too the rest of the year. Let him develop & play through the bad games. I was encoruaged by his game last night
January 15th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Dipper,
Yeah you don’t get a point for a great pass, you don’t get a point for setting a great screen, you don’t get a point for boxing out your man even if the ball bounce the other way. But all of those things help the team and makes it easier for the team to win. There’s more to a basketball game than which team put the ball in the hoop more, it’s how they got it there.
Higher assists is an indication of good ball movement and team work leading to easy baskets.
January 15th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Higher assists is an indication of good ball movement and team work leading to easy baskets.
- Shocking that someone who watches basketball doesn’t agree with this.
January 15th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Luke Ridnour is a good point guard when he’s aggressive and plays confident. I believe the Sonics recent struggles may have actually helped both Ridnour and Wilcox. The Sonics played very poorly without them in the lineup and it gave them a confidence boost that they are important to the teams success. Ridnour has always played well when he has confidence in himself. The biggest problem he has had is maintaining that level of confidence and aggressive play. When Watson was brought in a couple of years ago, Ridnour saw the team playing well with Watson and his confidence level dropped off. Mental toughness has been an issue with Ridnour in the past and I just wonder if he gets down on himself at times. He still has a chance to prove he’s more than just a backup PG in this league. To do that though, he needs to continue believing in himself as a player and maintain an aggressive level of play.
January 15th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Dipper is a contrarian. Dipper, Crow, and Beantown are the only bloggers that do not spout the same redundant drivel or post the same hackneyed arguments.
Dipper, my guess is that the Mavs serve as your ideal model. They’ve won over 125 games the past two seasons despite being among the bottom feeders in terms of assists per game (second worst in 2005-2006, seventh worst in 2006-2007). Yet they were a top ten team in terms of FG percentage the last two seasons. I guess their motto was “why pass it when I can just hit the shot.”
January 15th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
One of my bigger statistical pet peeves is when a player makes a beautiful pass to another player who is then fouled before he can hit a shot, the player who made the pass will receive no reward statistically even if the player that is fouled hits one or both free throws. I guess the reward is team glory.
January 15th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
“Luke Ridnour is a good point guard when he’s aggressive and plays confident. I believe the Sonics recent struggles may have actually helped both Ridnour and Wilcox.”
You’re right. Luke definitely looked confident last night, even taking shots that he usually doesn’t take. I’ve always believed Luke could be a 12 points 7 assists guy. He just has the natural ability to get the ball to a scorers comfort zone.
“Give me guys who can shoot. You can have great passers, but if they don’t have good shooters to pass to, you’re not going to win many games.”
So you’d want a team of Jason Kapono’s instead of a team of Jason Kidd’s? If you were playing pickup ball, you’d rather play with guys that can only shoot and not be able to do much else? That’s going to be one boring and frustrating game.
January 15th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Should those easy putbacks by Thomas and Collison in OT be registered as assists from Ridnour? Luke made it pretty easy for them by shooting those bricks.
[/sarcasm]
- Agreed…
January 15th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
One of my bigger statistical pet peeves is when a player makes a beautiful pass to another player who is then fouled before he can hit a shot, the player who made the pass will receive no reward statistically even if the player that is fouled hits one or both free throws. I guess the reward is team glory.
I totally agree with this, and it’s something I’ve noticed as well.
I think they should credit the passer with an assist if the player makes both free throws. Since the two free throws are making up for the shot attempt, it should also make up for the assist, since the end result is the same with the team getting 2 more points.
Not sure what they should do if the foul shooter only hits 1 or 0 free throws. Maybe they can credit the passer with 0.5 assist or something.
January 15th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
I don’t prefer a team with low assists to a team with high assists. I just think it does not matter. What I prefer is a team with a high true fg%. How many assists a team averages is something that I don’t even bother to look at.
As far as having a team of Jason Kidds — that team would be shooting 36.1% from the field, and 32.5% on 3-pt shots. That team’s true fg% would be under 50%. A team of Jason Kidds would almost certainly be the worst team in the NBA. Currently, the worst shooting team in the NBA is Chicago, at 41.7%. Jason Kidd is shooting 36.1%. You can’t win many games in the NBA shooting 36.1% from the field. There are only 3 teams in the NBA shooting worse than Kidd’s 32.5% on 3-pointers.
At team of Jason Kidds would be absolutely horrible. Can you imagine a team with every player shooting significantly worse than Kevin Durant?
January 15th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
“Dipper is a contrarian. Dipper, Crow, and Beantown are the only bloggers that do not spout the same redundant drivel or post the same hackneyed arguments.”
I like that. I’m going to use that in tomorrow’s game thread. “Post your redundant drivel and hackneyed arguments here”
Nice.
January 15th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Anything to help Steve.
January 15th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
In my opinion, Watson is a good quality back-up PG. Coming off the bench, he can play with a lot of energy and really push the ball up the court. As a backup, giving his team 15-25 minutes every game, he can be a very effective player and help his team win. When you ask him to be a starter his flaws are going to be more apparent. Watson isn’t nearly as bad as people make him out to be on this site, but I will agree that he’s not a starting PG. He’s still a nice player to have on your team as a roll player.
Collison was a monster last night. He’s actually a decent athlete and it was nice to see him take it to the rim with some authority.
I though Wilcox played pretty well in the short minutes he was on the court. Wilcox and Ridnour both seem to be essential in the Sonics running game. Without those two guys in the lineup the Sonics offense had really been struggling.
Also, I thought PJ did a much better job with his rotation than he has in the past. Obviously, getting Wilcox and Ridnour back helped, but I saw some other things I liked as well. Namely, getting Wilkins and Petro out of the rotation, although Petro did play some in the first half. A couple times during the game, PJ even went to that quicker, more athletic lineup I have been wanting to see. I thought they were really able to push the tempo with that group on the floor.
January 15th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
“At team of Jason Kidds would be absolutely horrible. Can you imagine a team with every player shooting significantly worse than Kevin Durant?”
You would need to hide all dance team members and any attractive women from a team of Jason Kidds.
January 15th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
This is an overgeneralization but I think a team that gets a high number of assists tends to be an indication of a team that doesn’t spend too much time in the paint earning the dirty points at the line. The Sonics are out-assisting Dallas, Orlando and New Orleans this season - hooray!
January 15th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
People are talking as if Durant is supposed to be shooting with no flaws, he is a 19 year old rookie for crying out loud. He should not have been taking those final second shots last night, Wilcox should have been in much longer unless he was still sore from his injuries.
January 15th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Arguing between Ridnour and Watson is like arguing about which of the Olsen twins is better looking.
January 15th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Fair enough Dipper. But I’m not sure NBA players would agree with that.
January 15th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
I participated in a potential assists project over at 82games.com a couple of years ago and we tracked plays where there might have been an assist but it didn’t work out. We counted points for free throws made on those potential assists. Like a lot of the projects we were doing that year (such as creating useful defensive statistics like defensive forced miss) it seems to have been largely ignored by the NBA.
January 15th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
“Arguing between Ridnour and Watson is like arguing about which of the Olsen twins is better looking. ”
The one that isn’t anorexic is hotter.
January 15th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Only four of the top ten assists teams in the NBA are among the top ten teams in terms of field goal percentage (Suns, Jazz, Lakers, and Pistons). Perhaps Dipper’s point, which I think is that assists do not have much of an impact on team shooting, has some merit.
January 15th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
You would need to hide all dance team members and any attractive women from a team of Jason Kidds.
- No french fries at the team buffet either..
January 15th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Only four of the top ten assists teams in the NBA are among the top ten teams in terms of field goal percentage (Suns, Jazz, Lakers, and Pistons).
That’s a pretty good four.
January 15th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Speaking of a team of Jason Kidds — just take a look at last night’s box score of the New Jersey Nets game for an approximation of what a team of Jason Kidds would look like.
Last night Jason Kidd shot 3-13; Vince Carter shot 2-9; Richard Jefferson shot 2-11. As a team, New Jersey shot 33.8% from the field, not much worse than Kidd’s season average of 36.1%. Last night, the Nets were pretty close to being a “team of jason Kidds.”
So what happens when a team shoots like Jason Kidd? The Nets lost that game AT HOME by 26 points! That is often what happens when a team shoots like Jason Kidd.
So what is the explanation for the Nets shooting 33.8% last night? I bet I know: it was because Kidd had a bad night passing, right? Kidd just could not make good passes last night, so Carter and Jefferson could not make shots. It could not have been that Kidd made his normal passes, but Carter and Jefferson just had bad shooting nights. Nope. Must have been all Jason Kidd’s fault for not making good passes last night.
By the way, in that game, where the Nets lost at home by 26 points, the Nets had 18 assists on 26 fg’s (69%), and the Blazers had 23 assists on 37 fg’s (62%). Does that matter to anyone that the Nets had assists on a greater percentage of their made fg’s than the Blazers did? Apparently the Nets did a better job of “moving the ball” and “passing” than the Blazers did. Didn’t seem to do the Nets a whole lot of good last night, did it?
Do you really care how many assists a team has on how many made fg’s? I don’t.
January 15th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Only four of the top ten assists teams in the NBA are among the top ten teams in terms of field goal percentage (Suns, Jazz, Lakers, and Pistons).
Of note, the top two teams in FG% (Phoenix and Jazz) are also the top two in Assists. Lakers #3 in FG% but #4 in Assists. Then it tends to scatter from there.
January 15th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Well…I think 35 games is not really a big enough sample size to truly get a feel. However, if you look at the number of Assists as compared to Field Goal Attempted… you will see 6 of the top 8 teams have the highest percentages of Assists per FGA. The two that fall out are Orlando (I assume they get a ton of points off Howard putbacks) and Washington (who I simply didnt even know was the 8th best team in the league)…
January 15th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Alex Chan Says:
“Dipper is a contrarian. Dipper, Crow, and Beantown are the only bloggers that do not spout the same redundant drivel or post the same hackneyed arguments.”
Glad you don’t include yourself in that list…
January 15th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
So what is the explanation for the Nets shooting 33.8% last night? I bet I know: it was because Kidd had a bad night passing, right? Kidd just could not make good passes last night, so Carter and Jefferson could not make shots. It could not have been that Kidd made his normal passes, but Carter and Jefferson just had bad shooting nights. Nope. Must have been all Jason Kidd’s fault for not making good passes last night.
- Yes because one game of data that strategically proves your point is such a worthwhile bit of information. Should I go find a game where NJ had a really good game and prove you wrong? Or can we admit that this is a silly argument.
January 15th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
More fun with numbers…FG% is the best stat and yet Miami is 8th with 46.02% shooting, Memphis 10th with 45.91% shooting, Sacramento 13th with 45.56% and Milwaukee 14th with 45.30% shooting….shouldnt these guys be better?
January 15th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Re: +/-, it would be interesting to see how long of a span of games it takes before there is even a slight correlation with win loss. Dipper’s shooting percentage correlates much better to win loss I’d bet. Not saying I fully agree–he is discounting the whole fabric of the team game but indeed capable shooting is a tremendous advantage to winning.
January 15th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
“Dipper is a contrarian. Dipper, Crow, and Beantown are the only bloggers that do not spout the same redundant drivel or post the same hackneyed arguments.”
- Crow isn’t a contrarian…he just takes the time to provide nubmers for his data so it appears to be contrarian from typical Internet information.
January 15th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
I suppose Dipper would respond by pointing out that the Pacers (#6 in assists), Nets (#5 in assists but #1 in french fries spat), Bulls (#12 in assists), and Bucks (#14 in assists) are all sub-.500 teams.
January 15th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Some of you are putting the cart before the horse. If every team passed exactly as well as every other team, the teams which shot a higher percentage would make more fg’s and they would also have more assists. The reason they would have more assists would be because they shot the ball better, and made more shots — not because they passed the ball better. The more shots you make, the more assists you should have.
Therefore, it is good shooting that creates more assists, not better passing that creates good shooting.
Also, assists should be adjusted for “speed of game”, or whatever it is called. If a team averages 110 possessions per game, you would expect them to average more points, more fgm and more assists, than a team which averages only 100 possessions per game.
January 15th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Never said Crow was a contrarian. All I said was that he doesn’t spout redudant drivel or hackeneyed arguments.
I understand my limitations with respect to my understanding of the game. Most of the bloggers here seem to lack any perspective with respect to how much they understand about the game. I get the sense that some people on this blog truly believe they know more about basketball than Stromile Swift, Bob Weiss, or Bob Hill.
January 15th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
I’ll take a bulldog like DHoward who can dominate the paint and register a ton of unassisted baskets vs a PG like Kidd who has to rely on his shooters having an “on” night.
January 15th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Here is the best way to illustrate how I feel about assists. Let’s take 2 very common situations in the NBA — a 2-on-1 fastbreak, and a pick-and-roll in the half court.
2-ON-1 FASTBREAK.
1) Ridnour and Durant have a 2-on-1 fastbreak. The poor defender tries to “stop the ball” by guarding Ridnour, so Luke passes to Durant for an easy layup. Luke gets an assist.
2) Ridnour and Durant have a 2-on-1 fastbreak. The poor defender decides he’s not going to let Durant have another easy bucket, so he plays the passing lane, denying the pass. Luke keeps the ball and makes an easy layup. No assist.
In 1) there is an assist. In 2) there is no assist.
Is 1) a superior play to 2)? Or are they equally good, even though, in 1) there is an assist, and in 2) there is not?
If 5 times in a row, Luke passed the ball to Durant, there would be 5 assists on those 5 baskets. If 5 times in a row, Luke kept the ball himself for layups there would be 0 assists on those 5 baskets.
Does it matter?
January 15th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
A few observations:
1) Ridnour played well, his best game in months and months, but ran out of gas in the overtime. My seats are close to the floor. Trust me, Ridnour was in lactic acid overdose-oxygen debt hell. He couldn’t turn the corner on Fisher anymore (after killing him in the last few minutes of regulation) and he didn’t have the legs to shoot (he forced a stupid lay-up and missed an ill-advised three that would’ve had the Watson-haters screaming murder if Earl had taken it). More important, as he tired, he was even more of a liability on D than usual, hence:
2) Watson was playing great D (and had just as many spectacular assists as Ridnour and a couple of those missed-layup-Collison follows-faux-assists, as well!). He made that beautiful strip of Kobe at the end of regulation. And then, at the end of overtime, the Lakers drew up a play where Kobe went away from Earl’s possible double and to the left where Derek Fisher’s defender (I think it was Durant) couldn’t leave him to double. So ya think Phil Jackson would draw up a play that avoided Ridnour’s D? And do you think Kobe would ever follow a play that avoided Ridnour’s D? The guy next to me was yelling at Watson for not doubling, and I tried to explain to him what had happened. He couldn’t understand what I meant. I told him to go home and look at the replay. Earl had to run across the whole court to even get close to doubling. But the play was beautiful and made it impossible for Earl to get involved.
3) Ridnour is the emotionally and physically fragile PG so I think he’s more like the anorexic Olsen.
January 15th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Do you really care how many assists a team has on how many made fg’s? I don’t.
Like most stats, if you try and focus on only one, you miss the better part of the overall game.
Is FG% important? Obviously, Yes. That’s likes saying, you have to score points to win. But the bigger and more important question is how does a player or team improve their FG%? Or how does one become a high FG% shooter? Because ignoring the causation would result in being ignorant of what FG% reallly represents.
A couple of things to consider.
The top two FG% teams in the league are also the #1 and #2 teams in the league in assists. So while good passing may not be a pre-requisite for a teams good FG%, it does appear to help.
Now if you go look at the top FG% shooters in the NBA…..the list is pretty much dominated by post players. So essentially, guys who either primarily are reliant on a guard/wings passing them the ball when they get into a good scoring position on the block and / or get alot of shots from put backs, offensive rebounds, etsc.
So, in order to be a good FG% team one could surmise that you need to either, be a good passing team, resulting in more uncontested shots and layups…..or……have a dominant post player who takes a significant % of the team’s shots.
January 15th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
“I get the sense that some people on this blog truly believe they know more about basketball than Stromile Swift, Bob Weiss, or Bob Hill. ”
Stro Swift? He’s got the hoop IQ of the average log floating in a KeyArena men’s room.
January 15th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
PICK AND ROLL.
1) Collison sets a pick on Durant’s man. Collison’s defender switches, and jumps out on Durant. Collison rolls to the hoop. Durant hits him with a pass for an easy layup. Collison gets a basket and Durant gets an assist.
2) Collison sets a pick on Durant’s man. Collison’s man does not switch onto Durant, he stays on Collison, so Collison can not roll to the hoop. Durant’s defender goes behind the screen, leaving Durant open coming off the pick. Durant makes an open jump shot. Durant gets a basket. There is no assist.
In 1) there is an assist. In 2) there is not. Is 1) a superior basketball play to 2)? In each case, the Supes got 2 points.
In my opinion, both 1) and 2) are equally good, even though in 1) there was an assist, and in 2) there was no assist.
In each scenario, the team took what the defense gave them. In 1) the defense gave up a Collison roll to the hoop. In 2) the defense gave up an open jumper by Durant.
Therefore, sometimes whether you get an assist or not depends on how the defense plays. If the defense goes behind the pick every time, it pretty much forces the offense to take the jump shot, without a pass. If the defense switches the pick-and-roll, it probably allows a pass to the player rolling to the hoop, which means an assist.
Either is equally good to me, as long as it results in a made basket. I don’t care if there is an assist, or not. I just want to see the ball go in the hoop.
January 15th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Good breakdown in those last two posts, Dipper.
Lester Says:
(he forced a stupid lay-up and missed an ill-advised three that would’ve had the Watson-haters screaming murder if Earl had taken it).
Ain’t that the truth.
January 15th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Therefore, it is good shooting that creates more assists, not better passing that creates good shooting.
The first part of your statement is so obvious that I’m trying to understand why you make that statement along with the second part. Of course, you have to have made shots, in order for an assist to happen. Thus, more made shots, results in more assists, typically. That’s like saying you have to make shots in order to score points. ya think?
But once again, you are ignoring what I would think is the obviously part of the equation, which is…..a good pass to a wide open team mate typically results in a higher percentage shot than someone just going one on one and taking a contested shot.
For someone to claim that better passing doesn’t create better shots and more open shots, which in turn results in better shooting and higher FG% just baffles me.
January 15th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Dipper,
Perhaps breaking the discussion into two parts will help.
a) Shooting % statistic is more valuable than assist statistic.
b) Shooting is more important than playmaking.
By splitting these up we can see that perhaps a) is true, but it doesn’t make b) true. In fact you may not even be trying to argue b) at all… not clear to me at this point.
A practical application of this is how should the Sonics build, assuming defense is equal. A team of good shooters or a team of good playmakers? My vote would be a well balance team that has a PG who is a playmaker along with good scoring wings and interior players. Seems to me that will be stronger than a bunch of guys who can shoot but not pass, or pass but not shoot.
Just some thoughts….
January 15th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Either is equally good to me, as long as it results in a made basket. I don’t care if there is an assist, or not. I just want to see the ball go in the hoop.
Actually, even though you simplified the equation to one single play, I think you are still mistaken in how you are viewing it. You can’t just view FG% as a made shot. You have to take into context what shots are taken, how they are being created, where the shots are being taken from, etc. You can’t just look at FG% in a vacuum.
In scenario #1, the defense switches and Durant makes a good pass to Collison who is rolling correctly to the bucket for a dunk. High FG% shot. Probably a shot that Collison will make 90-95% of the time.
In scenario #2, the defense plays straight up, Durant then has to settle for the mid-range jump shot, which he might or might not make, but he’ll definately not make it at the same rate as Collison will the dunk. So maybe Durant makes the mid-range jump shot 50% of the time.
So the 50% of the time that Durant makes the jump shot your theory holds true, (doesn’t matter the shot, just that it goes in), the rest of the time, the additional pass that resulted in the higher percentage shot (Collison Dunk) was the result of the assist.
January 15th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Isn’t Collison only about 50% on his dunk attempts? (jk)
January 15th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Isn’t Collison only about 50% on his dunk attempts? (jk)
Good point. lol
January 15th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
I really don’t know where the disconnect is.
Obviously, FG% is important, but to ignore what generates a good FG% would be like being told the answer to a complex math equation but not having a clue how to come up with that answer yourself.
All shots are not created equal.
January 15th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Dipper-
They are the SAME play. It is designed for the ball handler to make the decision to pass or shoot based on the way the defense reacts.
Compare the play to a different play not the same play and we can compare quality of play. Actually we can’t because most plays are designed for specific scenarios, matchups, etc. I do hate a couple of the Sonics plays because they never seem to actually lead to anything other than a turnover or a bad shot which is not much better than a turnover. For example, I think their motion play stinks. Everyone reads it and clogs Durant on the back screens. They end up on the third or second option most of the time and seldom score, unless Szerbiak is the second option and pulls some stupid shot out of his slow, clumsy backside. Wally survives in this league because he is pretty smart and he can shoot. I struggle to find another perimeter player on the Sonics who fits those two criteria and can help on that play. Everyone else falls in to the “lucky as shite” category. Of course, that is just IMHO.
I hate Earl starting. The floor was electric last night when Luke was in there and it was hesitant and nervous when it was Earl. Shift the balance PJ. Your PG performance stinks but it could at least be mediocre.
January 15th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
I know you said you were joking but Colllison has hit 91% of dunk attempts, a bit better than Wilcox.
Some stuff here gets recycled and you could say it is aimed at keeping them in the idea mix. The overall variety and depth is good. The team has the lead role is creating new story lines.
January 15th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Frozen: but which shot the offense gets off the pick-and-roll is not determined by how good that team is at passing. It is dictated by the defense. It is the defense that is dictating whether or not the play results in a layup or a jump shot — not the offense. It is the defense which decides whether to switch or to go behind the screen — the offense can’t tell the defense which way to play the pick-and-roll.
If you want to take it a step further, you can even argue this: if the player with the ball is a great shooter, the defense will probably switch, so as not to give him an open shot. If the player with the ball is a lousy shooter, the defense will probably go behind the screen, giving him an open shot. So even having the option of passing the ball to a screener rolling to the hoop depends on how good a SHOOTER the guy with the ball is — not how good a passer he is.
Guards who can not hit a jump shot can not even run a pick-and-roll, because the defense will always go behind the screen — they will never switch. So the screener can never roll to the hoop. So, again, it is the ability to SHOOT which makes a pick-and-roll work.
In Payton’s first couple of seasons, he could not hit a jump shot, so he could not run the pick-and-roll. Teams would never switch on the screen, they would always go behind it, giving Payton the jump shot, which he always missed. It was only after Payton started making a decent percentage of those jumpers that teams started switching out on him, which then allowed him to be effective at running the pick-and-roll. Again, it was his decent outside shooting that allowed Payton to get assists on the pick-and-roll.
January 15th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Its time to start talking about saving the team you all like to talk about so much.Have any of you read the side stories about what’s not !!! going on in the legislature and W/ the arena.
Oh well we’ve got the storm.
January 15th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Can anyone name the season when Payton led the league in three pointers made (without googling)?
January 15th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
psheehy: what are the same play? A 2-on-1 fastbreak is the same play as a pick-and-roll? Are you serious?
January 15th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
The 2000-2001 NBA regular season is my guess without googling. He led the league in attempts as well. I don’t remember him being particularly sharp that year though. I think he was around thirty-five percent.
January 15th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Marko, I not sure there is anything new folks can do on fate of franchise at the moment. The city has to announce its plan and try to pass it for real or for show. City has a potential local buyer who will step out of shadows and express willingness to make things work if given opportunity or they don’t. The court has to act of initial motions. Bennett waits on relocation request. NBA waits on court. NBA and Bennett look at Hornets. Hornets look at the financials and potential buyers or new markets. Bennett keep track of OKC arena vote and his financials and Shinn. Sonics fans wait for some scenario to take shape. They’ve spoken up a decent amount. Any that want to do it more go ahead. I don’t feel a strong case to do more of that currently. It seems in the hands of the power brokers at the moment to me. Maybe events will provoke / need a bigger fan action at some point but there has to be movement first- sometime in next 2+ years.
January 15th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Scott said: “Because Wally can not create much for himself at this point, shoots a solid percentage with his feet set and because he’s a smart overall player he’s the best choice to be the inbounds passer.”
Yup, I agree. Wally being slower nowadays, he’s going to find it harder to get open in a halfcourt inbounds play.
Unless he’s the inbounder, in which case his defender is likely a bit busy doubling someone. It’s probably the best way to get him open in such a situation.
January 15th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Frozen: but which shot the offense gets off the pick-and-roll is not determined by how good that team is at passing. It is dictated by the defense.
So, is your arguement now that the opposing defense dictates what your FG% will be? I would hope not.
My understanding of this discussion is that:
1) You are only concerned with FG% and are ignoring completely what impacts FG%.
2) I am trying to open your eyes to the fact that good passing typically results in more open jump shots, more uncontested layups and a better FG%.
If you want to start diverting the discussion into disecting the basics of the pick and role that’s another discussion. Because, regardless of whether the defense switches or doesn’t switch, IF (in you scenario) Durant can’t make the good pass to Collison, then you will never get the high percentage dunk. So the ability to make the good pass, results in a much higher percentage shot than if you just take the mid-range jump shot.
I guess it just baffles me that someone can’t seem to grasp the concept that good passing results in higher percentage shots.
Though, like everything else, it doesn’t happen in a vacuum, thus good passes are not a pre-requisite to a high percentage shot.
January 15th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
The Big Dipper said: “Ok, maybe this is a good time to bring up pet peeve of mine: assists don’t mean diddly. What difference does it make if a FG is assisted or not? You get the same number of points for a FG whether it had as assist or not, right? The announcers who like to comment on how many assists there have been on how many fg’s just make me laugh. Who cares? Just put the ball in the basket. If someone passed the ball to you before you shot it, great. If you dribbled it for 15 seconds before you shot it, and the shot went in, great, also.
Makes no difference. A basket is a basket.
You get zero points on the scoreboard for an assist. ”
This is wrong on so many levels. Assists are important because they are a measure of how well your team plays as a team, and also a very good measure of how well a certain players makes his teammates better.
The teams that are not full of showboating one-on-one ballhogs are the ones with high assist totals.
The masters at making their teammates look better (i.e. Kidd, Nash et al) are the ones with high assist totals.
If you decide that assists are unimportant, you run the risk of building a team full of Shammonds.
January 15th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
13,452…that is a small crowd to come see Kobe and the Lakers…will the attendance get any better?
January 15th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Big Dipper said, “PICK AND ROLL.
1) Collison sets a pick on Durant’s man. Collison’s defender switches, and jumps out on Durant. Collison rolls to the hoop. Durant hits him with a pass for an easy layup. Collison gets a basket and Durant gets an assist.
2) Collison sets a pick on Durant’s man. Collison’s man does not switch onto Durant, he stays on Collison, so Collison can not roll to the hoop. Durant’s defender goes behind the screen, leaving Durant open coming off the pick. Durant makes an open jump shot. Durant gets a basket. There is no assist.”
I am old. I post slower than you kids.
January 15th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
And I missed your fast break comparison in the previous post…I thought you were trying to compare the two options of the P&R…my mistake.
January 15th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Well that settles it - teams just need to stockpile shooters and to heck with all that fancy book-learnin’ stuff like passing the ball, and creating easier scoring opportunities for teammates.
Good thing there is such an abundance of pure shooters, cuz otherwise this whole theory would collapse.
January 15th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Hey, Sene is playing and it’s free to watch on http://www.nba.com/dleague
January 15th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
The Big Dipper Says:
January 15th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
“The most important thing for Durant is being able to hit jump shots. And he has to be able to hit jump shots no matter who passes him the ball. How good an outside shooter Durant becomes has nothing to do with what point guard he is playing with, no matter how much Jason Kidd lovers want to believe that. ”
Dipper, I partly disagree. There is something fundamentally missing with this offense. All the players, esp the young guys, have got to learn more than just one effective offense, and that offense generally starts with the PG position. Everyone on the team has got to buy into and work towards an effective system.
The reason KObe gets the ball at 15-17 feet is in part because his teammates get it to him there, via a system. I don’t see any discernable offensive system from the Supes, and I think one problem with that is our relative ineffectiveness at the point. When Rid tries to cut to the basket, I applaud his efforts, but he never gets to the rim, when he’s close it’s nearly always a circus shot, and most often he is turned back before any penetration is made at all. He’s not a real threat to go inside, he’s not quick or big enough to effectively execute the inside out game, and the rest of the “system” doesn’t get guys inside deep enough to be very effective when receiving a pass from him. So “how good” or should we say “how effective” KD will be will come partly from who he plays with (esp the PG), and what system he is in.
January 15th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
There is a distinct lack of good shooters in the NBA nowadays. That is why the NBA stinks so badly right now.
The great teams of the 80’s were made of great shooters. That is why they were great teams. Look at the fg% of the players on the Celtics of Bird, Mchale and Parrish; the Lakers of Magic, Worthy and Jabbar; and the 76er’s of Moses, Dr. J., and Maurice Cheeks. Those teams stockpiled great shooters and were great, great teams.
The top 12 teams in fg% so far this season are:
Phoenix
Utah
Lakers
Dallas
Boston
Orlando
Portland
Miami
Detroit
Memphis
Denver
San Antonio
10 of the top 12 teams in fg% have winning records.
The top teams in fg% DIFFERENCE so far this season are:
Boston
Lakers
Phoenix
Utah
Detroit
Dallas
Portland
Orlando
Denver
Houston
Washington
Toronto
San Antonio
The top 13 teams in fg% differential all have winning records.
Shoot better than your opponent.
January 15th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
courtsense Says:
January 15th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
“…Classic! Like when Stockton would toss the ball to Malone on the blocks, and Karl would hold the ball, take a dribble, bump the defender with his ass, turn around, and shoot a fallaway J - and Johnny always got the assist at the Delta Center. ”
Hard to forget those times as a Sonic fan. It was so hard to win at the Delta!
January 15th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Alex Chan Says:
January 15th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
“One of my bigger statistical pet peeves is when a player makes a beautiful pass to another player who is then fouled before he can hit a shot, the player who made the pass will receive no reward statistically even if the player that is fouled hits one or both free throws. I guess the reward is team glory. ”
Good example, I hate that one too. But there are a LOT of problems with using statistics alone to get to the fine points of why player X is more effective with team Y, etc. There are so many elements of the game that are simply not tracked at all.
January 15th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Presti probably under some influence of Bennett sells 2 ‘07 second round draft picks for cash. Decent start by Davis is known. Could have been another piece for the future and made consideration of possibly moving Wilcox more feasible. Now Landy is playing a tiny bit- hitting 13 of first 18 shots and getting more than a rebound every 2 minutes. Neither call is a clear cut long run mistake yet but they might be going in that direction.
January 15th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Shoot better than your opponent.
If you score more points than your opponent you win. Who would have ever guess that?
The question still is, HOW are you going to score those points.
You think a team full of JJ Redicks is going to win many games in the NBA? He’s got the best “shot” of anyone in the NBA according to beantown, of which I probably agree. Problem is, if you can’t get an open shot, you aren’t going to shot a very high percentage.
January 15th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Baker said:
“Players need to be put in better positions to take better shots. The Sonics have trouble inbounding the ball, call a time out, and come back with a player catching the ball 25 feet from the basket in isolation, nice coaching. I would like to lay it on the players, but they appeared to be giving effort, they appear to have some talent, not a lot, so maybe the vet players calling out the coaches play calling has some weight, yes? The Lakers had the Sonics half court figured out, what there is of it, to the point where players are forced to create something out of nothing, 25 feet from the basket.
I would like to lay this loss on the rookie mistakes, but in the end was he running his own crappy play? Nope.
…
If the intended product of the “system” is to have zero player movement away from the ball in half court sets then it is working to perfection. …”
Very nicely said, could not agree more.
Frozen: “…It would help if the other players on the baseline and opposite side wing would cut to the basket or find an opening for a shot rather than standing around watching Luke drive to the bucket. Kind of leaves the PG out the dry if the center comes over to pick him up and nobody on our team takes advantage of the opening. ”
Word. I notice the same thing - it’s so aggravating. Is it the players or the “system”??
“It was good to see our PG finally penetrating and putting some pressure on the opposing defense though, despite the couple of times that Luke got stuck making a bad decision after getting in the paint. ”
Yes - Luke was trying out there, but as others have noted here, he doesn’t know what to do, or isn’t big or fast enough to do what needs to be done, once he gets inside.
January 15th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Myk Says:
January 15th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
“1) Lebron James is better than Kobe Bryant right now
- Congrats to Bob Weiss for saying a player with a near 30 PER is the best player in the league…in other news…the sky is blue.”
He he.
Hey, around here, usually the sky is grey. Where are you calling from again?
January 15th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Dipper, I agree - there is a distinct lack of good shooters in the league right now, and that is not going to change within our lifetimes. So now what -
Shooting better than your opponent is often easier to do if you get better shots. Getting better shots is often - not always - a product of better passing, better movement, better coaching, etc. Would I want a team full of Jason Kidd bricklayers? Hell no. But neither would I want a team full of Ray Allen sharpshooters. Somebody has to rebound the damn ball, somebody has to defend and somebody has to pass the damn ball. The best shooters are usually not those guys.
January 15th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Tukwila said:
“A practical application of this is how should the Sonics build, assuming defense is equal. A team of good shooters or a team of good playmakers? My vote would be a well balance team that has a PG who is a playmaker along with good scoring wings and interior players. Seems to me that will be stronger than a bunch of guys who can shoot but not pass, or pass but not shoot.”
BINGO. Balance is the answer. You win again! This time for your prize, look up to find a post by Baker that includes the words “Kobe” and “Violet Palmer”.
Ahh, what the heck, I’ll just paste it here:
Mr Baker Says:
January 15th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
“an assist can be worth 4 points if Kobe kicks his legs out at a defender while shooting a 3 and Violette Palmer is the ref.
Ha! ”
Good point, Baker! The possibilities are endless. What if the defender then gets called for a technical because he rightfully believes that Palmer is a cretinous hag? Does that make the assist worth 5 points?
January 15th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
frozen: I have told you over and over how to score more points than your opponent — SHOOT BETTER. If you shoot a higher fg% than your opponent in any given game you have an 80% chance of winning that game.
how hard is that to comprehend? Shoot better than your opponent in a game, and there is an 80% chance you will score more points than your opponent in that game
J.J. Reddick is a great shooter? For his NBA career so far, he is shooting 42%, and 37.8% on 3’s. You might think he is a great shooter, but those are not the numbers of a great shooter. I judge how good a shooter is by his shooting percentages. I have no idea what you are using to judge Reddick as a great shooter.
There are lots of guys who can rebound and pass. I want the guys who can also shoot. Collison and Wilcox are fine. Now the Sonics need guards, a small forward, and a center who can shoot, also. Having your two best players both being power forwards is not the ideal situation. Their third best player is also a power forward — Kurt Thomas. If they could trade Wilcox for a guard who can really shoot, I would probably do that.
January 15th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
frozen: I have told you over and over how to score more points than your opponent — SHOOT BETTER.
Sorry, but I think that’s as meaningless as saying “I can tell you how to beat other teams - score more points than they do.”
January 15th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
An outstanding shooter isn’t someone who can just drain buckets at an efficient rate, but is also albe to create shot opportunities for himself. Nowadays, though, that ability is seemingly a lost art in the NBA.
As it is, that quality is definitely NOT possessed by Kevin Durant. Pivotmen such as Erick Dampier, Andrew Bynum, Andris Biedrins, Fabricio Oberto, and Dwight Howard — who are all shooting over 60.0% from the field — also don’t have it, as they constantly get the ball dumped into the post for them by their playmaking teammates. The same goes for spot-up shooters from beyond the arc — which includes the likes of James Jones, Jason Kapono, Brent Barry, and Daniel Gibson — since they need to be distributed the rock for wide-open looks at the hoop.
All things considered, Mike Miller (Field-Goal Percentage: 52.0%; Effective Field-Goal Percentage: 61.5%; True Shooting Percentage: 64.6%) — who’s assisted on just 73% of his made jumpers and 40% of his made inside attempts — is one of few truly proficient shooters who’s playing the game today. On offense, Miller is essentially the prototypical swingman.
Cornerman Josh Childress (Field-Goal Percentage: 59.1%; Effective Field-Goal Percentage: 60.7%; True Shooting Percentage: 66.6%) is a proficient shooter. Childress can operate along the weakside baseline and drive to the hole — for he’s assisted on just 63% of his made inside attempts, which is much less than the average interior players who frequently relies on dump passes and putbacks — more efficiently than anyone at his position.
Oh well, this isn’t the first time that I’ve praised Miller and Childress. It’s unlikely to be the last time, too.
January 15th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
One game is NOT gonna make me say that Luke is “clearly” the best pg on this team(my memory is better than that, and experience won’t allow it). I will say that I liked the way he looked last night, but unfortunately he doesn’t look like that all the time. I would LOVE for him to take that starting pg spot SOON, and run with it. If he can’t do that soon, then I keep Earl as backup to a legit starter. If anyone has shown to not like coming off the bench it’s Luke IMO(Earl’s always been a backup), and I would also love for Luke to embrace that role as well, bcuz then we could actually consider keeping him as a backup(which could be great). Don’t make me recall the story KC, and Lenny told on-air near the end of last season about a particular player who approached Bob Hill in a hotel lobby, and offered to come off the bench for the sake of the team in spite of the fact that Hill inserted him as starter. I’ll even invite Brian R. to confirm that if need be, and if I somehow misunderstood then no prob….
January 15th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Ray Allen is shooting 41% for the season, and 44% for his career. He is such a bad shooter…
January 15th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
“Sorry, but I think that’s as meaningless as saying “I can tell you how to beat other teams - score more points than they do.” ”
This is one of the stupidest comments I have ever read here.
January 15th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
“J.J. Reddick is a great shooter? For his NBA career so far, he is shooting 42%, and 37.8% on 3’s. You might think he is a great shooter, but those are not the numbers of a great shooter. I judge how good a shooter is by his shooting percentages. I have no idea what you are using to judge Reddick as a great shooter.” {The Big Dipper}
I, without a doubt, wholeheartedly agree with this assessment. Hell, despite the fact that J.J. Redick has an optimal shooting form that produces a smooth stroke, it doesn’t negate his mediocre percentages on the court. In this case, perception isn’t reality.
The same thing goes for a certain player on the Seattle Supersonics. What’s that guy’s name? Oh yeah, it’s Kevin Durant. Sadly, though, naïve homers are oftentimes entranced by Durant’s perceived talent; consequently, they doltishly ignore his substandard production.
January 15th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
“Ray Allen is shooting 41% for the season, and 44% for his career. He is such a bad shooter…” {ajw}
Ray Allen has a career TSP of 57.0%, though, so lay off of the sarcasm. The likelihood of Kevin Durant having a career TSP equal to or higher than 57.0% is, in my opinion, practically zilch.
January 15th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
AK you are right,creating your shot is something younger players are having a hard time with.. Reddick is a great shooter picture perfect release, Steve Nash great shooter, and yes Kobe is a great shooter. Kobe is able to create off of a jab step as he free’s himself for the shot.. Ray Allen sometimes has to come off a screen, and in Boston is having a hard time creating his shot.
January 15th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
AK-I think the “substandard” production is a function of inexperience more than anything else…
January 15th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
AK-Do u acknowledge that youth, and inexperience are factors in KDs’ play so far as a pro?
January 15th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
AK Durant is going to be good in a year or two, great in 3 or 4 years, at 19 has had some 35 point efforts, so it’s there my man. At 19 your understanding for this league is minimal, he will not get it until he takes some lumps, and some criticism along the way. I like his attitude, and his enthusiasm.. He is going to be someone who can help turn it around..
January 15th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Now that sounds more like it…
January 15th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
frozen: I have told you over and over how to score more points than your opponent — SHOOT BETTER. If you shoot a higher fg% than your opponent in any given game you have an 80% chance of winning that game.
Once again dipper, you fail to understand the concept. Just “shooting better” doesn’t happen by accident. You don’t one day just say, we need to “shoot better” so we are going to “shoot better”.
JJ Redick has the best “Shot” in the NBA. Why isn’t he a star dipper? He should be able to “shoot better” than anyone else in the NBA. JJ Redick isn’t a star or even a role player right now in the NBA, because there is more to the game than just “shoot better”?
Will you at least admit that in order to “shoot better” a player needs to do more than just practice a jump shot? Can we at least get you to that first stage of thought? That “shoot better” isn’t something that just magically happens? That there is an actual chain of events that happen in the course of a possession that result in each shot and the quality of each shot?
January 15th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
There are lots of guys who can rebound and pass. I want the guys who can also shoot.
Well, at least you are now admitting that there is more to the game of baskeball than just “shooting better”. That’s progress.
January 15th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Shooting better than your opponent is often easier to do if you get better shots. Getting better shots is often - not always - a product of better passing, better movement, better coaching, etc.
Now if only the dipper would read this statement by courtsense over and over and over until it sinks in.
As mooshoo said. Saying if I want to beat the other team I need to “shoot better” is about as helpful as saying “If I want to beat the other team I need to score more points than they do”. It really doesn’t tell you anything.
Flesh it out for gods sakes, dipper. Don’t just say, “shoot better” tell us what they need to do, work on, in order to “shoot better”. Do they need to get more shots in the paint (typically higher percentage shots). Do they need to take fewer mid and long range jump shots? Do they need to get better movement on offense to they more uncontested shots?
Just understand that “Shoot better” doesn’t tell anyone anything.
January 15th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
“Sorry, but I think that’s as meaningless as saying “I can tell you how to beat other teams - score more points than they do.” ”
This is one of the stupidest comments I have ever read here.
Coming from the guy who said this???
frozen: I have told you over and over how to score more points than your opponent — SHOOT BETTER.
Some people here would think that, saying, “in order to score more points than your opponent - SHOOT BETTER” is just as stupid and blatantaly obvious as saying, “if you want to beat the other team you have to score more points than they do”.
The two statements are alarmingly similar in substance.
January 15th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
I, without a doubt, wholeheartedly agree with this assessment. Hell, despite the fact that J.J. Redick has an optimal shooting form that produces a smooth stroke, it doesn’t negate his mediocre percentages on the court. In this case, perception isn’t reality.
But….but…..but…..AK….all Redick has to do is “shoot better”.
January 15th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Yeah, J.J. Redick is the kind of player who doesn’t have the speed to come off of jagged screens successfully in the NBA. Unfortunately, Redick’s inherent drawbacks — which include a lack of agility, subpar athleticism, and mediocre ball-handling skills — will make it extremely hard for him to become anything more than a low-end role player in the NBA. Prior to the 2006 NBA Draft, those comparisons of Redick to Tim Legler and Fred Hoiberg have totally hit the mark.
January 15th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
Clay Bennett’s son sent me this website address in an email. It looks like OKC is going to work on informing it’s people on what the Ford Center upgrade will be all about. I think Seattle needs to be a more informative to it’s taxpayers!!
http://www.bigleaguecity.com
January 15th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
But….but…..but…..AK….all Redick has to do is “shoot better”.
And have balls.
These are clearly the only two things we should ever discuss when talking about a basketball player.
It’s all so simple when you break it down!
January 15th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
“AK Durant is going to be good in a year or two, great in 3 or 4 years, at 19 has had some 35 point efforts, so it’s there my man. At 19 your understanding for this league is minimal, he will not get it until he takes some lumps, and some criticism along the way. I like his attitude, and his enthusiasm.. He is going to be someone who can help turn it around..” {beantown}
“AK-Do u acknowledge that youth, and inexperience are factors in KDs’ play so far as a pro? {epx}
During the past couple of weeks, I’ve been a bit too hard on Kevin Durant. It’s obvious that Durant will improve during the upcoming seasons, but I’m still a little weary about him.
Whenever I watch Durant, it’s hard to get the image of Tracy McGrady out of my head. Although players like Durant and McGrady can undeniably score in bunches, they do it at the expense of shooting efficiency, team cohesiveness, and defensive intensity. Indeed, high volume shooting at an inefficient rate isn’t condusive to winning in the NBA.
In the end, ultimately, my gut feeling is that Durant isn’t the type of player who fits the model of a winner. Yeah, that’s admittedly a simplistic conclusion to an in-depth question — which, in all reality, has yet to have been answered at this point — thus, it’s understandable if most people disagree with my assessment.
Either way, though, there’s still plenty of time for Durant to make necessary changes in his game. Whether or not that happens, however, is up to him.
January 15th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
I find it impressive that this battle between Frozenropers and Dipper lasted longer than the debate between the candidates from the Democratic Party tonight.
Ginobili’s career true shooting percentage is approximately 58.5%. Ray Allen and Mike Miller are pretty much equal in their careers at 57%. Michael Redd’s career true shooting percentage is 56.5%. Rashard Lewis’s career true shooting percentage is also over 56%. Steve Nash…makes a mockery of all these guys. His career true shooting percentage, if my calculations are correct, is over 60%.
January 15th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
“JJ Redick has the best “Shot” in the NBA.”
Says who? Because you say that, it makes it true? How good a shooter you are is proven by your shooting percentages — not by some moron looking at a guy shoot and declaring, in his ignorance, “JJ Redick has the best “shot” in the NBA.” Obviously, by looking at his fg%, that is not true.
“Some people here would think that, saying, “in order to score more points than your opponent - SHOOT BETTER” is just as stupid and blatantaly obvious as saying, “if you want to beat the other team you have to score more points than they do”.”
I will give you this: your stupidity is giving me some great laughs tonight.
There are many coaches who think that in order to score more points than your opponent you need to TAKE MORE SHOTS than your opponent. I disagree with them.
Kevin Callabro thinks that to score more points than your opponent, you need to MAKE FEWER TURNOVERS (or TURNS, as Callabro would say). I disagree with that.
Some people here seem to think that to score more points than your opponent you need to “MOVE THE BALL BETTER.” I don’t agree.
If everyone agreed with me that the key to winning was to shoot a higher percentage than your opponent, nobody would be saying that Kevin Durant should be rookie of the year. So, it is not “obvious” to many people that shooting better is the most effective way to score more points. If this was obvious to everyone, nobody would think that Kevin Durant was having a good year, but many people seem to think he is having a good year.
January 15th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
To provide the actual answer to sheehy’s question about which year Gary led the league in the three-pointers made, the season was 1999-2000 regular season when Gary made 177 of the 520 threes he atttempted that season (Payton led the league in attempts as well). His percentage was only thirty-four percent but I believe the three-point line that year was longer than it is now.
My memories of that season are pretty faint. I recall that the Sonics were 26-15 at one point that season and Vin Baker had a quasi-bounceback season. They were able to push the Jazz to five games in the first round when the first round was a best-of-five. The Supes were down three in the final possession and Chuck Person, for some reason, was the guy that took the shot that would sent the game into overtime. Paul Westphal had the Norv Turner look stonecold that entire season. The most shocking thing from that season may have been Paul Westphal’s decision to start Lorenzo Borrell in a playoff game instead of Vin Baker.
January 15th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
What sucks about having a post in moderation is that once it’s actually posted, everyone has moved further down the thread. They didn’t even know the post ever existed. They think they’ve read all the posts already. Darn it.
It would be better policy to enforce a login prior to ANY posting, kill all existing bad logins, and clear all new logins with an Admin prior to first post. That would stop a bulk of the “real” S-P-A-M right there.
January 15th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
Yes, 2000 against the Jazz was the year that each team won on thier home floor. It was when GP and Karl Malone had their blow up and Karl was tossed. GP with the Sonics up by like ten, calmly shot the ball from the free throw line at the buzzer and made it and they gave a typical GP stare to the Jazz bench. That was a great series even though we lost.
January 15th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
That’s Lazaro Burrell to you, Alex.
Dipper, I’m dying to know who you and the gods of your FG% religion say the Sonics should’ve drafted at #2?
January 15th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
So Big Dipper, let me get this straight. You don’t agree with Calabro when he says that having fewer turnovers leads to more points? Really?
So if the Sonics had 20 turnovers in a game, doesn’t that mean that they lose a minimum of 20 more shot attempts/FT attempts/whatever? At least 20 attempts, maybe more depending on offensive rebounds and fouls and whatnot. And with 20 turnovers, doesn’t that give the opportunity to the opponent to have at least 20 more FG attempts/whatever?
Wouldn’t a team want to avoid 20 turnovers (or any amount, really) to keep 20 FG attempts just for the fact that they could lead to more points and also less points for the opposing team since they lose out on those extra shots?
January 15th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
I’m watching Sene on NBA TV right now and he looks pretty good. His movements are still kind of awkward but he’s running the floor well and seem to be in good positions for rebounds and put backs.
January 15th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
Dipper,
I think you need to shoot a good percentage as well. Moving the ball and not turning it over help in that regard over the course of a season.
KD is having a good season for a rookie. I am also not exactly impressed with 19 points on 6-26 shooting. KD needs to improve his ball handling so that he can go to the hoop more often. Until then, it will be difficult for him to create space for his jumper because folks are not worried about his other options.
I used to think that I had some idea of what the plan was for working out the offense and the rotations. But now I have no clue. I bring that up here because by now, PJ should have reigned in KD’s shot selection but he hasn’t. I read somewhere that KD should have a 20 shot limit. The person had stats that made sense.
January 15th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
I apologize to Lazaro.
19-year old Rashard Lewis burst onto the scene that season but Westphal was reluctant to play him. I recall Calabro on KJR essentially lecturing Westphal that Rashard Lewis needed to start receiving thirty minutes a game. Even KC didn’t seem to think very much of Westphal’s coaching. After Game 5 ended, Karl Malone allegeldy told Rashard to go get his money as Lewis was only on a two-year contract as a second round pick.
That season was so weird. It started with so much promise but ended with the team playing sub .500 basketball the second half of the season. Remember the whole “Chuck Person allegedly checked himself into a game without Paul Westphal’s permission” rumor? In a way, I look back at that season with some fondness just because the Sonics were still a relevant part of this city’s sports discourse.
January 15th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
Fair enough on KD AK. I don’t see McGrady, but I can’t blame u if u do, and if he does turn out to be another TMac, then I agree that it would be a dissapointment…
January 15th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
Alex, are you referring to the season when Payton threatened to bitch slap Westphal on the bench when Paul yanked him out of the Lakers game with the Sonics trailing late in the 4th?
January 16th, 2008 at 12:06 am
Probably. Paul was only there for two full seasons, one of which was the lockout season. Westphal was gone after 15 games in the 2000-2001 regular season. Nate was the one who actually ended Gary’s consecutive games streak by suspending GP for some type of subordination. The Sonics were probably the last 44-38 team to miss the playoffs.
January 16th, 2008 at 12:09 am
Thanks Sonicsman for passing along the OKC arena campiagn link from Graham.
January 16th, 2008 at 12:11 am
I stopped watching college basketball a long time ago. I don’t follow the draft. I have no idea if there was any player better than Durant in the draft or not. Obviously, I think Oden is a far better player than Durant, but if Oden is going to be injury prone, as some people expect, then that is a moot point. It may be that Durant was the 2nd-best player in the draft. He may become a good shooter. I’m not writing him off yet. Just pointing out that, so far, he’s not been very good. I think the best thing about him is that he is so young, so he has a good chance of improving a lot. If Durant was 21 or 22, I would be a lot more worried about him.
I just looked up J.J. Redick’s college stats from Duke.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/player/profile?playerId=11144
In his sophomore season at Duke, J.J. Redick shot 47% from the field, including 42.1% from the college 3-point line, which is about 4 feet closer to the hoop than the NBA 3-point line. Neither of those is a particularly good percentage for a college player.
How anyone can think that Redick is the “best shot” in the NBA is amazing to me. Reddick was not even that good a shooter in college. How can anyone think that 47% in college is great shooting? Ridiculous.
John Stockton, for example, in his sophomore season in college shot 57.6%. And someone thinks Reddick, who shot 47% in college is a great shooter. That is just bizarre to me.
Vince Carter shot 52.5% in his sophomore year at N. Carolina. His junior year he shot 59.1%.
Antonio Daniels shot 49.5% in his sophomore year. 54.7% as a senior.
Kirk Heinrich shot 50% in his sophomore season at Kansas, including 50.5% on 3-pointers. And Reddick is a great shooter?
Other sophomore seasons:
Allan Houston: 48.2% and 42.9% on 3’s.
Even Jason Kidd shot 47.2% in his sophomore year in college, and we can all see what a terrible shooter he has been in the NBA.
Kyle Korver: 47% and 45.2%
Reggie Miller: 55.3% (they did not have 3-pointers in his sophomore year)
Gary Payton: 48.9%; 39.7% Payton was never a great NBA shooter, but he was decent in the NBA.
Paul Pierce: 48.8% and 46.5%
Luke Ridnour: 46.8% and 44.1% and he’s a poor NBA shooter
Rod Strickland: 58.2% and 53.3%
Ray Allen: 48.9% and 44.5%
J. J. Redick was not a great shooter in college. How anyone can say he has the best shot in the NBA is just bizarre, to me.
By the way, the NBA 3-pt line has never been farther out than it is now. It was closer for a couple of seasons, but never farther out.
January 16th, 2008 at 12:12 am
Remember Patrick Ewing’s first game as a Sonic up in Vancouver during the 2000-2001 regular season. That was hilarious. The Grizzlies ran the Supes out of gym that game. I’m not sure if Patrick even hit a shot that game.
Not only did Westphal start Borrell in a playoff game in the 1999-2000 regular season but I recall that he also started Emmanuel Davis in that same playoff game! Gary also tossed a weight at Mad Max that season and Westphal didn’t have the guts to suspend him despite the fact that Horace Grant was injured because of the errant weight toss. Good memories.
January 16th, 2008 at 12:13 am
I see where LeBron needed “only” 28 FGA to score 51 points in an overtime win - and in his spare time he managed to grab 8 rebs, dish 9 dimes, and rip 3 steals…
Meanwhile, the NBA’s best player KoMe Bryant needed 44 FGA to score 42 points in an overtime win - and in his spare time he let 2 rebs fall in his lap, pinched 2 dimes, and ripped 1 steal…
Hmmm…just shoot a better percentage indeed!
LeBron, all day every day. A better teammate, a better player.
January 16th, 2008 at 12:21 am
Duh - Kobe had 48. The rest stands…
January 16th, 2008 at 12:24 am
Mad Max, Gary Payton, Ruben Patterson, and Vin Baker on the same team…with Shammond Williams. Westphal didn’t have a chance with this set of chracters. Quite an eclectic team.
January 16th, 2008 at 12:25 am
Of course it is better to have fewer turnovers. I’m just saying that shooting percentages are far more important than turnovers.
I just looked up some research I did on NBA championship teams from 1974 to 2004. That is 31 championship teams. Of those 31 teams, 29 shot a higher fg% than their opponent, during the regular season. But 18 of those 31 championship teams had MORE TURNOVERS than their opponents. So how important are turnovers, really?
For example, the 1980 Lakers championship team of Magic and Jabbar had 1639 turnovers, and their opponents had 1420. So the Lakers had 219 more turnovers than their opponents that season — about 2.7 more turnovers per game than their opponents. Yet they outscored their opponents by 5.9 pts/gm. How? The Lakers shot 52.9% from the field, while their opponents shot only 47.0% from the field. The Lakers also made 192 more free throws than their opponents. But the key for the Lakers was great shooting, as it is for most great teams.
January 16th, 2008 at 12:28 am
I’m going to bed.
January 16th, 2008 at 2:20 am
This will probably get buried but read the PI article today.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/basketball/347545_sonx16.html
Say all you want, but we have some truly special players if this is the case.
The entire sonics team, from coaches to players to securities, opted to deliver food at a homeless shelter in New Orlean tonight. NBA only required several players to attend but the ENTIRE team jumped on the board.
Someone from that shelter said the sonics are his favorite team now, caz NOT EVEN THE HORNETS have done this.
Is that true???
I don’t know who is running the show in NO Hornets front office but how they allowed that to happen just baffled me.
BIG UPS to our boys for making a change in the WORLD.
January 16th, 2008 at 2:45 am
What happened in the eighties is certainly relevant but let’s take a look at how the NBA stands today. Turnovers are a pretty significant indicator as to a team’s success.
Top ten teams in terms of turnover differential (in order): Warriors, Pistons, Hornets, Raptors, Jazz, Celtics, Suns, Nuggets, Bulls and Spurs. Eight of these ten teams are playoff teams if the season ended today.
Bottom ten teams in terms of turnover differential (in order): Grizzlies, Sonics, Wolves, Knicks, Nets, Magic, Bucks, Rockets, Blazers, and Lakers. Four of these ten teams are playoff teams if the season ended today.
I don’t think anyone disagrees with you about how important it is to shoot better than your opponent. Of the ten teams with the worst FG percentage differential, only two are playoff teams. Of the ten teams with the best FG percentage differential, eight are playoff teams.
January 16th, 2008 at 6:01 am
big dipper if you watch JJ reddick shoot, you know he has a great shot. A great shooter has to take bad shots, and are sometimes forced to take alot of shots when open.. Stats will never prove a picture perfect release. So say what you want about his stats, go to a game and watch him shoot in warm ups and your head will spin, he can flat out nail it. When your a shooter and you come off screens there is always D waiting for you. He is not strong enough to create his own shot, as he needs a screen. The % are not the way to follow a shooter, how does he shoot, and can he shoot with D on him.
January 16th, 2008 at 6:19 am
“big dipper if you watch JJ reddick shoot, you know he has a great shot. A great shooter has to take bad shots, and are sometimes forced to take alot of shots when open.. Stats will never prove a picture perfect release. So say what you want about his stats, go to a game and watch him shoot in warm ups and your head will spin, he can flat out nail it. When your a shooter and you come off screens there is always D waiting for you. He is not strong enough to create his own shot, as he needs a screen. The % are not the way to follow a shooter, how does he shoot, and can he shoot with D on him.” {beantown}
Amazingly, I agree with beantown here.
At the free-throw line, J.J. Redick is shooting 89.7% thus far throughout his NBA career. Redick, moreover, shot 91.2% from the charity stripe during his time in college at Duke. As it is, those numbers place Redick alongside some illustrious company — such as Mark Price and Steve Nash — so let’s give him credit.
Sans Jason Kapono, Redick has the most pure, picture-perfect shooting stroke in professional basketball. Although Redick isn’t an efficient shooter from the field — which is caused by his lack of quickness, mediocre athleticism, inferior ball-handling skills, and inability to create for himself — there’s no ignoring his flawless form.
Anyhow, this is an interesting topic.
January 16th, 2008 at 6:49 am
And lets be really honest about Redick, at heart he’s a stand-still jumpshooter, he’s solid coming off screens and poor at creating his own looks. Look at his teammates and Arroyo’s probably thier best option to create looks for JJ and Battie would have been thier best screener (injured), Jameer Nelson’s not a great creator and more often than not shots that are set up by Howard in the post are going to end up with looks for Turkaglu or Lewis.
Redick’s shot is a thing of beauty, but he can’t do anything else on the court. Jason Kidd on the other hand can’t shoot worth a lick (aesthetically or percentage wise) but everything else he’s able to add to a game makes him probably one of the five best PG’s to ever play the game.
Hoiberg’s asolid comparison AK, I think you could add a guy like Steve Kerr into the mix as well although not probably as good for comparison’s sake.
January 16th, 2008 at 7:41 am
Sorry Scott Kason Kidd can shoot, obviously your not a shooter, people who appreciate form like Reddick has is a shooter. He has good handle and is a smart player, but ask Steve Alford how tough it was as a shooter to be productive when playing point guard.. I also can say I saw JJ Reddick play in a high school all star game in Virginia his senior year, all the hype about his shooting was already known. What surprised everyone at this event is he also won the Dunk contest, the boy can get up. You would not see that on any stat sheet nor would you think that when watching him play. Now I know this was in high school but he is alot more athletic than people give him credit for..
January 16th, 2008 at 8:03 am
“Sorry Scott Kason Kidd can shoot, obviously your not a shooter, people who appreciate form like Reddick has is a shooter.”
Of course Kidd can shoot, he just can’t shoot well. You look at his shot and its nowhere near as pure looking as Ray, JJ, Kapono or Peja. But so few guys in the league have that pure looking of a shot.
My point was more that being a pure shooter is a great tool to have, but it doesn’t necessarily make you the better player.
The big thing Kidd’s worked on through the eyars is being a good enough shooter so people had to respect his shot, in the same vein as Payton early on.
January 16th, 2008 at 9:13 am
Reddick=Jon Sundvold
Anyway, today still the day the Sonics and the City of Seattle meet in the other court where legal games are played.
1/16/2008, an important date, so I have been told.
January 16th, 2008 at 9:34 am
Says who? Because you say that, it makes it true? How good a shooter you are is proven by your shooting percentages —
So when you say shooting percentages, are you talking about FG%, true FG%, or ability to make a shot outside of 10 feet?
I can’t hardly believe you think:
Andrew Bynum - 63.6% FG%
Andris Biedrins - 61.7% FG%
Dwight Howard - 59.7% FG%
Tyson Chanlder - 59.4% FG%
Josh Childress - 59.4% FG%
The top 5 players in FG% in the NBA are also the best “shooters” in the NBA, do you?
The problem dipper, which is really rather humorous that you still haven’t caught on to this, is that your statement that a team needs to “shoot better” is such a broad statement that it really doesn’t carry any more meaning than a statement like, “we need to score more points”.
Both statements fall into the category of “No shit Sherlock!”.
So rather than making a statement that is so blatantly obvious that it doesn’t really have any useful meaning, tell us HOW they can improve their shooting percentage.
January 16th, 2008 at 9:43 am
If everyone agreed with me that the key to winning was to shoot a higher percentage than your opponent, nobody would be saying that Kevin Durant should be rookie of the year. So, it is not “obvious” to many people that shooting better is the most effective way to score more points.
Once again, saying someone needs to “shoot better” is about as non-descript as you can get. Why don’t you tell us HOW they can shoot better?
Tell us what Kevin Durant needs to do in order to “shoot better”. If it was as simple as “make a higher percentage of his shots”, then why wouldn’t everyone do that? Is it because scoring in the NBA isn’t that simple. Is it because you actually have five defenders on the floor trying their best (well sometimes trying their best) to not let you score more effeciently?
So what does someone like Kevin Durant need to do in order to “shoot better”? That’s what I’m trying to get out of you dipper. Heck, I can say Damien Wilkins needs to “shoot better” but does that tell anyone anything everyone on this board doesn’t already know? It doesn’t and that’s why I’m trying to get you to dig a little deeper and realize that “shoot better” isn’t nearly as simple as you are making it out to be.
January 16th, 2008 at 9:51 am
‘So what does someone like Kevin Durant need to do in order to “shoot better”?’
Isn’t that only half the question? It might be that there is something he can do: work on his shot. And that, as you say, is obvious. But the other half is: “what can the team do to improve his and its field goal percentage?”
“Get better shooters” hardly begins to answer the question.
January 16th, 2008 at 9:52 am
Today is the day we will learn the trial date for the Lawsuit between the City of Seattle and Clay Bennett. We also hope to hear the Cities Arena proposal which is expected to be a KeyArena remodel similiar to the one that Howard Schultz was offered. We know Bennett is not interested in the remodel so it will be interesting to see the response. The cities knows Bennett is interested but is simply showing an effort and putting a offer on the table to try and make it tougher on the NBA and Bennett. I don’t think a KeyArena remodel offer would stop the BOG from allowing the relocation of the franchise but we will see. The interesting thing is that Schultz was ok with Key Remodel but was wanted it to be more of a larger scale remodel than what the city offered and did not want to contribute as much as the city was asking for. We will see what happens.
January 16th, 2008 at 9:57 am
You pretty much CAN’T make someone a better shooter. That is why it is important to acquire players who can shoot, because you really can’t teach that. A few weeks ago I posted an article quoting Temple coach Chaney, who says that by 19 or 20 years of age it is all over — either you can shoot or you can’t. Nobody can teach a guy how to shoot. You just need to get good shooters for your team.
This is so obvious, I can’t believe I have to explain it to you. Oh, but you think JJ Redick has the best shot in the NBA, so I guess the obvious is a little hard for you to comprehend.
I like every player on your list. You don’t? Obviously, you need players at different positions. So I would want a great shooting center, a great shooting poward forward, a great shooting small forward, a great shooting 2-guard and a great shooting point guard. Sort of like the Magic-Jabbar Lakers and the Bird-McHale Celtics (other than DJ). You have heard of those teams, right?
If it is so obvious that shooting is key, why do people think that Jason Kidd and Kevin Durant are great players? Obviously, some people do not value good shooting.
As for turnovers, it was not just teams in the 80’s who won titles while committing more turnovers than their opponents.
Most recently, the 2003 San Antonio champs had 64 more turnovers than their opponents.
The 2001 Lakers had 101 more turnovers than their opponents.
The 1999 Spurs had 29 more turnovers than their opponents.
As I said, of the 31 championship teams from 1974 (the first season the NBA kept track of turnovers) through 2004 (I did this research a couple of years ago, and that was the last complete season at the time I did it), 18 had more turnovers than their opponents. So MOST of those championship teams had more turnovers than their opponents. So how important can turnovers be?
January 16th, 2008 at 10:01 am
At the free-throw line, J.J. Redick is shooting 89.7% thus far throughout his NBA career. Redick, moreover, shot 91.2% from the charity stripe during his time in college at Duke. As it is, those numbers place Redick alongside some illustrious company — such as Mark Price and Steve Nash — so let’s give him credit.
Sans Jason Kapono, Redick has the most pure, picture-perfect shooting stroke in professional basketball. Although Redick isn’t an efficient shooter from the field — which is caused by his lack of quickness, mediocre athleticism, inferior ball-handling skills, and inability to create for himself — there’s no ignoring his flawless form.
Anyhow, this is an interesting topic.
I agree 100% with AK on this. Thus the point that I’ve been trying to make through this whole string. In order for someone to “shoot better” or lets get at least a little more descriptive, score more efficiently in the NBA, it is not as simple as the original statement implies that the player mearly has to “shoot better”.
It is much more complex than that and entails many things such as, taking higher percentage shots more often, playing with a group of players work well together creating good spacing, ball movement and screen well for each other, creating higher percentage shots for everyone on the floor.
Being an efficient “scorer” in the NBA is about a lot more than just “shooting better”.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:05 am
I remember years ago, when I was just a little wannabe baller, and my Grandpa, Homer B. Courtsense Sr., was teaching me the finer points of the game - how to hold my bottle with my off hand, how to run the floor with a full load in my pants - anyway, I remember how Gramps always used to say: “C-Ball, the best way to make sure you consistently shoot a higher percentage than your opponent is to D those f***ers up - get in their jocks and make ‘em work for everything - cuz on the nights when the shot isn’t falling, you can still lock ‘em down on D.”
So Dipper, what ya wanna bet that one of the prime reasons those Championship teams of the past 30 years were able to shoot a higher percentage is because they were almost always one of the top defensive teams as well?
January 16th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Using Yahoo Sports “sortable stats” for the NBA to find the current leaders by position, this is the team I would get by selecting the top fg% player at each position at the current time.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/stats/byposition?pos=C&conference=NBA&year=season_2007&sort=21
Center: Bynum; 63.6%
Power Forward: McDyess; 51%
Small Forward: LeBron James; 48.7%
Shooting Guard: Richard Hamilton; 49.5%; (45.5% on 3’s)
Point Guard: Steve Nash; 51.4%; (46.6% on 3’s)
You think that team would not contend for the NBA title this year? I’m not sure if McDyes is even a starter for the Pistons this year. If not, I would go with the best-shooting starting PF, who is Dirk Nowitzki at 48%.
I would like to see the list of the top TS% at each position, but not sure where to find that. They have to be “qualified leaders”, in other words they must have attempted a minimum number of shots this year to qualify.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:15 am
If it is so obvious that shooting is key, why do people think that Jason Kidd and Kevin Durant are great players? Obviously, some people do not value good shooting.
Based on your quote from Coach Chaney, I would assume you agree with him. I don’t.
It also sounds like you don’t think Kevin Durant is a “good shooter”. Plus if you believe Chaney and don’t think Durant is a “good shooter” now then I would surmise that you don’t believe he could ever become a “good shooter”.
See, the problem I have with you and your statment is you don’t seem to be able to differentiate between a player who has a “good jump shot” and a player who “takes good shots”.
In My Opinion, Kevin Durant is a good shooter (ie. he has a good jump shot), Kevin Durant’s problem is that he is not taking very many “High Percentage Shots” right now during the course of the Sonics games. This is due to a number of reasons, which would be much more interesting than the current discussion of trying to point out to you how broad and meaningless your statement is.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:15 am
Well, courtsense, you can always do that research yourself.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:19 am
You think that team would not contend for the NBA title this year?
The funny part is you appear to be asking if anyone is going to disagree with that?
The real question is do you realize WHY those players have such high shooting percentages?
January 16th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Well, let me make a little analogy here. Maybe this will explain how I feel about shooting a little better.
This is something Bill Russell said quite a while ago. Russell has become a golf nut since retiring from basketball. Russell and Kenny Easley actually played in the foursome behind my group once at North Shore Golf Course many years ago.
Anyway, Russell had this to say about golf. He was discussing with someone how to tell if a person they did not know was a good golfer or not. The other guy told Russell that he always looked at the player’s swing to see if he was a good golfer or not. Russell said he did not look at the person’s swing. He said, “I look at where his shots go.”
Get it?
I don’t care what a player’s “shooting stroke” looks like. I only care whether the ball goes in the hoop or not.
I have been told by many people that I have a beautiful golf swing. People I have never seen before have come up to me at the driving range and said, “you really have a beautiful golf swing.” But I can’t play worth a damn, any more.
One teaching pro told me that some guys have ugly swings, and when they hit a good shot everyone thinks it is just luck. But with my pretty swing, people will think that when I hit a good shot it is because of skill. I told him, “I would rather have an ugly swing and hit good shots than have a pretty swing and hit bad shots, like I do.”
To state the obvious: I don’t give a tinker’s damn what any player’s shooting stroke looks like. I certainly don’t give a tinker’s damn what frozenroper thinks any player’s shooting stroke looks like. I only care how often his shots go in.
Is that obvious enough for you?
January 16th, 2008 at 10:25 am
I hate to go here, but this discussion really feels like I’m having a discussion with a fan who has his head burried in one stat but doesn’t want to understand or just can’t understand what that stat means in the overall course of an actual game of basketball that is being played on the court with actual players interacting with one another.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:27 am
Well Frozenroper. Why do you think one person can make shots and another can not? I would call that “skill”. What would you call it? Some people are better shooters than others. How is this too difficult for you?
And some people would rather have Jason Kidd on their team than Steve Nash. Go figure.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:38 am
“Some people are better shooters than others. How is this too difficult for you?”
Are you even reading people’s responses to you? Find one post in this thread that suggests that anyone here has a problem with the fact that some people are better shooters than others.
It really seems like you’d prefer they scrap the game and replace it with a three-point competition … or that the game is really no different than a three-point competition, the attention people pay to things like ball-handling, play-making, defense, rebounding, coaching, etc. serving somehow to obscure the fact that none of those things have any bearing on shooting whatsoever.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:39 am
To state the obvious: I don’t give a tinker’s damn what any player’s shooting stroke looks like. I certainly don’t give a tinker’s damn what frozenroper thinks any player’s shooting stroke looks like. I only care how often his shots go in.
Is that obvious enough for you?
What is blantantly obvious is that you have become enamored with FG%, but don’t appear to have a clue about what actually goes on, on a basketball court that impacts the one stat that you’ve become so enamored with.
It is a shame really. Basketball is a great game that is impacted by so many things going on, on the court. I hate to see someone get so buried in a stat that they don’t understand what that stat really means in the course of an actual game.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Frozenroper does not get that. He thinks that JJ Redick has the best shot in the NBA. Have you been reading his posts?
January 16th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Yes. Did you read the second part of mine?
January 16th, 2008 at 11:00 am
I like the link to D on the post earlier up. Basically players (like Nash, LBJ, and rip hamilton from ur “all FG% starting lineup) that can get out on the break and hit easy shots like layups and pull-up jumpshots will have a high FG%. Others (like Bynum and McDyess) get their buckets because their opponents are too busy doubling scorers like Kobe or trying to contain the rest of the team, what I like to call “The Sam Perkins affect”, Sam had a great career, but we can’t forget that he had the benefit of being the 4th or 5th least threatening guy on the court, so basically his job description was hit open 3’s and well the rest is history.
And for the record when you say that those 5 guys could compete for a championship… put me, a sonic chearleader, and the gatorade bucket on a team with Lebron and Nash and even WE would go deep into the playoffs.
Bynum
McDyess
LeBron James
Richard Hamilton
Steve Nash
January 16th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Shooting and shot defense are the biggest part of the game in terms of affecting scoreboard, usually about twice as much as all rebounding and 4 times as much as getting to the line and 5-6 times as much as turnovers or the really overrated (not that important to many strong teams) forcing turnovers.
You probably have to be good on at least 2 of the 3 among shooting, shot defense and rebounding to be a good team. You can sometimes get away with being average or light on turnovers or getting to the line.
A few extra turnovers are tolerable if they a byproduct of pushing the ball inside or running and you have a high FG% on the attempts you got off. Sonics in worse situation of high turnovers and low FG%.
January 16th, 2008 at 11:01 am
I’ve been watching the NBA since the earliest televised games, when they used to show Bill Russell going against the Big Dipper several times per year. I’ve seen The Big O, Earl the Pearl, Dr. J, Magic, Michael, Bird, etc. I’ve heard coaches from Red Auerbach to Phil Jackson talk about the game.
I’ve heard all the crap about “ball movement”, 2nd-chance points, “making other players better,” “creating your own shot”, etc. etc. etc.
The more I see, the more I hear, the more I read, the more I boil it down to the basics: put the ball in the basket.
As a basketball coach said famously many years ago: “There are only two great plays — “South Pacific”, and Put the Ball in the Basket.”
I bet Snapper has heard that one before.
Is that an oversimplification? LOL of course
Sure there is a lot of other stuff to basketball besides shooting. But when all that other crap has been played out, at the end of the day, the team which shoots best usually wins. You can delve into all the other crap all you want to. I did that when I was young. As I’ve gotten older I’ve learned to simplify.
And when there are people around who say things like “Jason Kidd is the best point guard in the NBA,” or “JJ Redick has the best shot in the NBA,” I think that there are people around who just don’t get it.
January 16th, 2008 at 11:04 am
Well, Crow, I don’t know where you got those last figures, but they sound about right to me.
January 16th, 2008 at 11:05 am
Well Frozenroper. Why do you think one person can make shots and another can not?
There are a lot of reasons why one player in the NBA or any other organized B-ball game can make a shot and another can not. Not the least of which comes down to “shot selection”.
Case in point. Nobody in their right mind who’s watch Andris Biedrins shoot the basketabll would mistake him for a “good shooter”, however he’s 2nd in the NBA in FG% this season at 61.7%. According to your theory, Biedrins is a “good shooter”. Biedrins shoots a higher percentage from the field than he does the free throw line. Andris Biedrins is not a “good shooter”. What Biedrins does is realize the limits to his ability and plays within the role he is capable of within the Warriors offense and shots alot of high percentage shots which are very close to the bucket. Nobody will ever mistake Andris Biedrins for being a good shooter. What Biedrins does is limit his shot selection to high percentage close shots which results in a high FG%.
If Andris Biedrins took the same shots over the course of a game that Kevin Durant took, his FG% would be so far below Kevin Durant’s that it wouldn’t even be funny.
I would call that “skill”. What would you call it?
If we were living in a dream world where everyone took the same shots, during the same game, under the same circumstances, then yes, the difference between whether one person made the shot and another missed the exact same shot could be left to simply be a differential of “skill”.
In the real world, where players play different roles on different teams, and take different shots, from different places on the court, under differring defensive pressure……….in the real world, I’d say there is a lot more than just simple “skill” differential that goes into whether or not one person makes a shot and whether another person makes a completely different shot.
Some people are better shooters than others.
Yes, and some people take better shots than other people and some players have better teammates than other players and some players get better screens set for them than other players and some players have Steve Nash as their PG who can break down a defense, get in the paint and dish you the ball for an easy dunk, while other players have Earl Watson for a PG who SHAMOND, SHAMOND, SHAMOND’s the ball for 22 seconds then passes it to you 25 feet from the hoop so you can jack up a contested 3 pointer with the shot clock running out.
How is this too difficult for you?
How is it so difficult for you to realize that not everyone takes or gets the same shot opportunities during the course of a game?
How is it so difficult for you to understand that the other nine players on the court make a difference and have an impact on each players ability to score?
How is it so difficult for you to understand that “shoot better” doesn’t even begin to explain how a player is actually going to make their FG% get from 39% to 49%.
January 16th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Sonics offense is currently bottom 5 in league on both turnovers and FG%.
P.S. GP are you wit’me?, thanks for sharing the Sonics outreach story. That is a part of the culture we want.
January 16th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Frozenroper does not get that. He thinks that JJ Redick has the best shot in the NBA. Have you been reading his posts?
Since you still can’t see the forest through the trees, dipper.
I said JJ Redick has the best “shot”. I didn’t say anything about JJ Redick being the best scorer, or most efficient scorer or that he has the ability to create space in order to get his great “shot” off during a game.
Big difference, yet appears to be one that is completely lost on you.
January 16th, 2008 at 11:15 am
agree 110% with Frozen on this one:
how about this for size Dip, put steve nash on the sonics and think about what his shotting% will be. The team that surrounds you, how they match up to the opponent, the kind of opportunities you create etc. etc. determine WHAT SHOTS YOU CAN TAKE!!! From those shots you will make and miss some. Putting it this way, if I can have 8 FG’s in a game would there be a difference if all 8 were layups off of fast break opportunities or if all 8 were getting the ball behind the 3 lin, two guys in my face and shot clock at 2 (earl watson anyone?). There are too many variables in the game to say that “good shooting” is all you need. right now KD has no one to take the pressure off him so he will always get our opponents best defensive effort all the time. Thus hitting 61% of his shots is an impossibility. Just see it for what it is: a complex game with many factors… FG% is one of them but it is a really loaded stat when you compare player performance.
January 16th, 2008 at 11:15 am
Sure there is a lot of other stuff to basketball besides shooting. But when all that other crap has been played out, at the end of the day, the team which shoots best usually wins.
Yes, but the key is that it is typically all that other “crap” that makes the difference between a “good shooting” team and a not so good “shooting team”.
January 16th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Is that an oversimplification? LOL of course
Thank you.
Matter of fact, it is so over simplified, IMO, that you might as well just say, “If we score more points than the other team we’ll win”.
January 16th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Big dipper I was just going off league averages.
Teams take about 82 shots a game and defend that many times too. Overall they grab 40 some rebounds, usally about 10 offensive, 30 defensive. And so does the opponent. They get 20 some free throws and make around 15 turnovers. And the opponents near the same. The proportions I gave were off that. All these things have “expected value” but only FGs and FTs actually put points on the scoreboard.
January 16th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Dipper, current top 20 on TS% can be seen here
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2008_leaders.html
A search tool whereby you could drill deeper at each position is currently offline but will return there.
January 16th, 2008 at 11:22 am
The TS% column is middle, about halfway down the page.
January 16th, 2008 at 11:31 am
“good shooter” = high shooting %. When I say “good shooter” I mean high shooting percentages. That is how I define “good shooter.”
I don’t care whether that is due to a “pure stroke” or “good shot selection”. What difference does that make? Part of being a “good shooter” is knowing what shots you can make and what shots you cannot make. It all shows up in your shooting percentages.
As far as Biedrins’ FT% goes, that would show up in his TS%, which is a better stat than just fg%, I agree. I would rather use TS% than just fg% when rating players, but the NBA does not provide that, as far as I can tell. Where does Biedrins rank in TS%? That is a better stat.
I use fg% because that is the only shooting stat provided in box scores. You can also get the 3-pt % and ft %, but box scores don’t combine those into eFG% or TS%, and I’m not going to take the time to do those calculations myself.
Just using fg%, you find that the team with the higher fg% wins 80% of the time. That is good enough for me. If box scores gave eFG% or TS%, I would keep track of that for a while, but they don’t.
January 16th, 2008 at 11:41 am
If Steve Nash were on the Sonics, he would have the same shooting percentages as he does on the Suns. This is where I completely disagree with you guys, if you think Nash’s shooting %’s are because of the players he plays with, apparently. I don’t.
You put Ridnour or Watson on Phoenix, and they would not shoot nearly the %’s that Nash does, from the field. Now, if you disagree with that, I am going to be very surprised. Watson and Ridnour both get lots of wide-open shots that they just miss, that Nash would make.
Let’s just look at the New Jersey Nets this year, for an example of that sort of thing. Many people are trying to say that Jason Kidd “makes everyone on his team better”, with his great passing. As of now, the New Jersey Nets are 4-th worst in the NBA in FG% at 43.4%. They are 2n-worst in team 3-pt% at 32.3%. If Jason Kidd makes all his teammates better shooters by giving them great passes, why is N.J. shooting only 43.4% from the field? If any of you would explain that to me, it might help me understand just where you are coming from.
So 2 questions for you guys:
Would Ridnour or Watson be shooting the same %’s from the field as Nash, if they played for Phoenix, instead of Nash?
Why is N.J. shooting so badly as a team if Jason Kidd is so good at “creating easy shots” for all his teammates?
January 16th, 2008 at 11:44 am
On average NBA championship teams rank in top 10 on offensive and defensive efficency.
Last season champion Spurs were 2nd on eFG% and 2nd on FG% allowed. 6th on own turnovers, 20th on turnovers forced. 3rd on defensive rebounding. 27th on offensive rebounding partly due to good shooting but also protecting the backcourt. Lowest rate of giving fouls. 2Oth at going to the line. 5 top 10 performances on the 4 factors “forgave” the 3 low ranks, in part because they were high ranked on 3 of the 4 biggest parts and the low ranks all came on the smaller parts. That is a good team construction. You can vary the details but the general principle is the same for everyone- being good on the biggest parts makes the most difference.
January 16th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Would Ridnour or Watson be shooting the same %’s from the field as Nash, if they played for Phoenix, instead of Nash?
I don’t believe his point was that Luke or Earl would shoot the same FG% as Nash if they were on Phoenix…….Nash is a better player that either Luke or Earl, thus put them in the same situation and Nash will always have better stats than Luke or Earl.
The point was that if you take Nash away from his surroundings in Phoenix and put him in Seattle’s lineup instead of Luke or Earl, that you’d see Nash’s stats (including FG%) decline because of the players surrounding him in Seattle as opposed to the current supporting staff he has in Phoenix.
In otherwords, Nash’s supporting cast in Phoenix has an impact on the types and quality of shots he gets during the course of a game. Move him to Seattle’s lineup and he won’t get the same quality of shots.
January 16th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Nets offense does suck this year 26th on offensive efficency and 26th on eFG%. Last season they were 15th on offensive efficency and 7th on eFG%.
Mikki Moore and Kristic helped balance the floor and gave Kidd a full menu of options.
January 16th, 2008 at 11:56 am
I don’t agree. I think Nash would shoot the same percentages in Seattle as he does on the Suns.
Maybe there is one thing everyone can agree on: wouldn’t we all like to find out?
How do you explain N.J., Frozen?
January 16th, 2008 at 11:59 am
I don’t agree. I think Nash would shoot the same percentages in Seattle as he does on the Suns.
I completely disagree with you here, but that’s neither here nor there.
Maybe there is one thing everyone can agree on: wouldn’t we all like to find out?
I’d rather find out the impact on CP3’s stats if he were playing in the current Sonics roster.
January 16th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Of course ridnour and watson will still suck if they went to the suns here’s why:
they aren’t the focus of our offense NOW and wouldn’t be if they went to the suns.
Nash on the other hand gets only a fraction of the attention he deserves in phoenix. He has a supporting crew that make the prospect of doubling Nash a bad idea, and in fact opponents will even leave him alone and wide open on the occasions where he doesn’t already have the ball in his hands. Now put nash in a lineup of KD, Green, Wilcox and Thomas and you’ll see guys doubling him all the time, he WILL the be focus of our offense and therefore people will recognize him on defense a hell of a lot more than they do in phoenix (at least until durant starts to get into his own). THAT is what I’m saying, no player can be seen as a single entity independent of his surroundings, those other guys on the floor have a lot more to do with Nash that you are giving them credit for.
January 16th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
How do you explain N.J., Frozen?
NJ lost Mikki Moore 60.9% FG%
Krstic has been injured most of this season. He was second highest volume shooter and shot 52.6% FG% last season.
Nachbar played well in reserve role last year with 45.7% FG%. Not handling full time gig with 39.8% FG% this season.
Kidd’s FG% is also down this season to 36.1% from 40.6% last season.
Different mix of players having an impact on the quality and types of shots being taken. Carter and Jefferson are essentially the same as last season, its the other parts to the equation that are making the difference in NJ this season. Just goes to show how important those “role” players can be.
January 16th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Dipper has been a fan of his own fantasy league since before we were born. Only in a fantasy league would his starting 5 above maintain the same percentages they have now.
“I think Nash would shoot the same percentages in Seattle as he does on the Suns.”
Talk about stupid.
January 16th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Crow, since you seem interested in this, which I doubt many people are, I will share something with you.
When I was doing my research on team stats, I came across a couple of things which really surprised me, and which I think would surprise most people, even NBA coaches.
I was not surprised that the team which shoots best from the field usually wins. I was surprised that it was literally 4 out of 5 games, or 80% of the time. That is a very high percentage.
What really surprised me were these 2 things:
1) The team which gets the MOST FIELD GOAL ATTEMPTS USUALLY LOSES!
2) The team which gets the MOST OFFENSIVE REBOUNDS USUALLY LOSES!
Now, those percentages are not very high. Somehwere around 55%. The team which gets the most off reb. and the team which attempts the most field goals usually loses about 55% of the time.
That is sort of counterintuitive. It would seem that getting more fga than your opponent would be a good thing. It would seem that getting more off reb than your opponent would be a good thing.
But teams which get more off reb are usually the teams which miss more shots, and missing shots is a bad thing.
And teams which take fewer fga usually take more fta and free throws are usually more efficient than fg’s.
Anyway, don’t know if that is interesting to anyone or not, but I found it interesting. Coaches and GM’s which build teams around offensive rebounding and getting more shots than their opponents are choosing a very difficult way to win.
Back to my 31 championship teams from 1974 to 2004.
Of those 31 teams, 18 had FEWER FIELD GOAL ATTEMPTS than their opponents.
January 16th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
I don’t agree. I think Nash would shoot the same percentages in Seattle as he does on the Suns.
Maybe there is one thing everyone can agree on: wouldn’t we all like to find out?
How do you explain N.J., Frozen?
- Hmmm, do you know what I find extremely odd Dipper…Steve Nash has played for two teams during his “prime years” and yet his eFG% is significantly higher now then when he played with Dallas. I mean you’d think it’d be very similar now wouldn’t you…
January 16th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
As Frozen has pointed out very well…Dipper’s argument is so broad and general then it is no different then saying you need to score more points than your opponent to win…
The fact that you are obstuse enough to not understand that basketball is played with 10 players on the court and how those 10 players react to the situations during the game significantly effect the outcome is pretty amusing.
January 16th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Frozen: are you saying that if someone is not a good shooter, playing with Jason Kidd will not make him a good shooter?
January 16th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
I’d also wonder why Brent Barry was never able to lead those Sonics teams to victories considering he was always one of the top eFG% players when he played here.
Finally, if we are to just sit down and truly accept your premise that the ONLY stat that is worthwhile in the game of basketball is FG% (or eFG% or even eFG% diff) then your only valid argument is that the team that was #1 in that stat would have won every championship ever
…if that is not the case (which I am sure it isn’t) then you have to be able to admit that there are facets to the game that are important and that while eFG% (or whatever) is an important stat…it isn’t the only stat you should focus on.
January 16th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Myk: the fact that you can’t figure out that some players are better shooters than others is pretty amusing.
Moffet: if you think that Steve Nash could not shoot as well on the Sonics as on the Suns, I find that stupid.
January 16th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Frozen: are you saying that if someone is not a good shooter, playing with Jason Kidd will not make him a good shooter?
- Are you going to argue the converse Dipper? I find it odd that if Jason Kidd and his low FG% is so damaging to a team he was able to take two pretty untalented teams to the NBA Finals…
January 16th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Myk: the fact that you can’t figure out that some players are better shooters than others is pretty amusing.
Moffet: if you think that Steve Nash could not shoot as well on the Sonics as on the Suns, I find that stupid.
- Ummm…hmmm…not even sure where in the world you got that I dont think there are better shooters than others…but, again lets all give Steve Nash a big round of applause for suddenly becoming the best shooter in the NBA late in his career…I mean it wouldn’t have anything to do with other factors would it?
January 16th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
…clap…clap… (crickets)
January 16th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Yes. I am going to argue that playing with Jason Kidd does not make players better shooters. Vince Carter being a prime example.
I do think that playing time can have a big effect on how good a shooter is. Many players shoot better if they get 30 minutes/gm as opposed to 15 minutes/gm, for example.
Steve Nash deserves all the credit for becoming a great shooter. Giving anyone else the credit for that is an insult to Steve Nash, and just plain incorrect.
Well Myk, I guess that would call into question your idea of “untalented teams,” now wouldn’t it?
January 16th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Frozen: are you saying that if someone is not a good shooter, playing with Jason Kidd will not make him a good shooter?
You question is really worded screwy, but I’ve never said anything regarding Jason Kidd making people better or worse shooters. That was someone else, but here is something for you to noodle on.
Mikki Moore:
2005/2006 Seattle - 43.6% FG%
2006/2007 New Jersey - 60.9% FG%
2007/2008 Sacto - 52.3% FG%
So, in Seattle Mikki Moore was a relatively “bad shooter” with a 43.6% FG%. He goes to NJ and all of a sudden Mikki Moore is a “great shooter” with a 60.9% FG%. Now this season, Mikki Moore is only a “good shooter” with a 52.3% FG%.
Does Mikki Moore’s shooting ability change every season or is it possibly the team surrounding Mikki Moore that impacts the shots he takes that changes each season?
Another direct impactably player. Vince Carter the last two seasons in Toronto shot close to 41% FG%. Then his next season in NJ his FG% all of a sudden jumps to 46%. Did Vince Carter all of a sudden become a “Good shooter” or did something in his environment change that resulted in him getting better quality shots?
January 16th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Myk: the fact that you can’t figure out that some players are better shooters than others is pretty amusing.
Nobody said that wasn’t true.
January 16th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
At the game level those things make sense as you describe Dipper.
At the season level 6 of top 10 teams on offensive efficiency get more FG attempts up than league average. But only 4 get more shots than their opponents.
9 of top 10 teams on offensive efficiency and in top 10 on FG% and the last one is 11th. 5 are in top 10 on rate they get to line. 6 are top 10 on low turnovers. Only 1 is top 10 on offensive rebounds.
January 16th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Moffet: if you think that Steve Nash could not shoot as well on the Sonics as on the Suns, I find that stupid.
That’s alright, I think most everyone else in this thread thinks its pretty stupid that you think Steve Nash’s stat’s wouldn’t change at all if he moved from the Suns to the Sonics.
Someone alread pointed out that Nash’s stats changed when he went from Dallas to Phoenix. Did Nash all of a sudden, just magically become a “better shooter” in Phoenix than he was in Dallas? Or was it something about the change in the environment and team surrounding Nash that resulted in his improved stats?
January 16th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
6 get more free throws than opponent.
These tables are handy
http://tinyurl.com/2554ap
January 16th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Hmmm…well lets take a look at two teams:
Team A: FG% 42.5 OpFG% 45.5…record: 26-56
Team B: FG% 44.6 OpFG% 42.9…record: 52-30
Now…what if I said these teams were more or less exaclty the same except for one player…
Hmmm…I wonder who that one player was…
January 16th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
http://www.hoopsstats.com/basketball/fantasy/nba/trends
January 16th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Last link shows change from last season.
January 16th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Steve Nash deserves all the credit for becoming a great shooter.
Didn’t you make the arguement earlier (with your Temple Coach Chaney quote) that players either are “shooters” or aren’t “shooters very early in their careers. That “good shooting” isn’t something that can be taught.
Seems this whole, Nash taught himself to be a “great shooter” mid-way through his career would contradict that earlier point you were making. Whats gives there?
January 16th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Oh well…at lesat Dipper’s argument proves that I have always been right and Ridnour is a far better player than Earl Watson has ever been.
January 16th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Shots and offensive rebounds up. FTs made down slightly. FG% down. Winning way down.
Dipper makes some good points.
The broadest argument has 2 sides and I’d agree with much of both as I think it is on the one hand, on the other kind of dynamic..
January 16th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
That is true. Steve Nash is a great example of an exception to that. Very few players shoot a higher fg% in the NBA than they do in college. I looked at NBA guards a few years back, and of about 50 guards I looked at, only 3 had higher career fg% in the NBA than they had in their junior year in college. Steve Nash is the best example. But, since over 90% of guards in the NBA shoot a lower fg% in the NBA than they did in college, I would not get my hopes up too high for many others doing what Steve Nash did. And I do give Nash all the credit for that.
There are always exceptions. Just take my main point about shooting a higher fg% is the surest way to win a game. That happens about 80% of the time. But it does not happen 100% of the time. About 1 of every 5 games the team which shoots better from the field does lose. You can win games by getting more fg attempts, or by making more ft’s. I have never said there is only one way to win a game. I have just said that shooting is the MOST IMPORTANT skill and stat in basketball.
If you want to say that, since 3 of 50 starting NBA guards in the NBA Register shot better in the NBA than in college, but 47 of 50 did not, that proves that it’s never too late to learn how to shoot, go ahead. 94% is a pretty good percentage in my opinion. But a few players have done that.
Nash is the guy the Sonics kept comparing Ridnour to when they drafted Luke, because Nash is about the only guard who has improved his shooting so dramatically since entering the NBA. Counting on Ridnour to be as great an exception to this rule as Nash is quite the long shot, in my opinion.
I certainly would not want anyone shooting 36% (Jason Kidd) on my team.
January 16th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
“Moffet: if you think that Steve Nash could not shoot as well on the Sonics as on the Suns, I find that stupid.”
Really, Dipper? You don’t think he’d command more defensive attention on this team? Really, Dipper? I guess not, since what you’ve been arguing is that nothing contributes to or detracts from a player’s field goal percentage outside of his own ability as a shooter.
You’re essentially arguing that while you would choose Nash for your All-field-goal-by-position-team, his being a point guard and the fact that his MVP honors were the result of the things he did as a point guard (i.e., the things that help his teammates get high percentage shots) are effectively baseless. He’s just a good shooter who just happens to bring the ball up the floor most of the time. That’s it.
Your position argues the game of basketball out of existence. Take to the HORSE board.
January 16th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
I think Steve Nash would shoot the same percentages in Seattle as he is in Phoenix. Yes. You are correct. I absolutely do not think Nash would be double-teamed often if he played for the Sonics. If he was double-teamed, he would pass the ball. That would not affect his fg%. It might affect his scoring average. But we are not talking about scoring average.
Nash shoots when he has good shots. He might get fewer good shots in Seattle, but that does not mean that he would start forcing bad shots. He might just pass more, and shoot less. But his shooting percentages would be just as good, in my opinion.
January 16th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Steve Nash is the best example. But, since over 90% of guards in the NBA shoot a lower fg% in the NBA than they did in college, I would not get my hopes up too high for many others doing what Steve Nash did. And I do give Nash all the credit for that.
- What is silly is that you fall back onto his college stats and yet can’t explain why his numbers went up so dramatically from his days in Dallas to his days in Phoenix…not only did he get better, he got better pretty much overnight…oh well…sort of like how Jason Kidd that team killer came in and took a 20 win team and made them a finals team…people see what they want to see.
January 16th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
“Nash shoots when he has good shots.”
You’re coming around!
“He might get fewer good shots in Seattle, but that does not mean that he would start forcing bad shots.”
If his teammates weren’t making an effort to get open he might have no choice but to force a shot.
“He might just pass more, and shoot less.”
Because he would have so many offensive weapons to pass to.
“But his shooting percentages would be just as good, in my opinion.”
Nice.
January 16th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
“If his teammates weren’t making an effort to get open he might have no choice but to force a shot.” Yeah, right. Like nobody on the Sonics wants to shoot the ball.
Wilcox and Collison are both shooting 50% or better. Durant will shoot the ball every time he touches it. Kurt Thomas is shooting around 47%. There is nobody on the Sonics who is shy about shooting the ball, or doesn’t want to get open for a pass. Many of the Sonics don’t shoot very well, but that does not mean they don’t like to shoot. Doesn’t matter how good his team mates are, Nash would still pass it to them.
I did not say Nash would turn the Sonics into a contending team. I just said he would shoot the same percentage as he did in Phoenix. That would not mean Durant or Wilkins would become great shooters because of Nash. But they would still be glad to take a lot of shots.
You make zero argument that Nash’s fg% would fall.
Saying that Sonics players would not make an effort to get open, when Nash is double-teamed? If Nash is double-teamed, at least one teammate would be open just by standing around. That is a foolish comment.
Nash would pass the ball to whomever was open. Doesn’t matter how great an “offensive weapon” they are.
January 16th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Ok, let’s talk about Steve Nash.
In college he shot .430 for his college career.
In his first 2 NBA seasons, in Phoenix, he shot about 42% and 46%.
In his next 6 seasons, in Dallas, he shot about 47.5%, on average.
In his 3 full seasons in Phoenix (2nd time around) he has shot 50%; 51% and 53%. This season he is currently shooting 51.4%. His last year in Dallas he shoot .470, and in his first year in Phoenix he shot .502 — just about 3 percentage points better.
So Nash went from shooting about 47.5% for his 6 years in Dallas to over 51% in Phoenix. That is a significant improvement, I agree. But about 4 percentage points is not an enormous improvement, in my opinion. But it is significant. Nash was a pretty good shooter in Dallas, and has become a great shooter in Phoenix.
Why did Nash improve his shooting by about 3.5 percentage points from Dallas to Phoenix? Who knows. Why did Nash improve his shooting from 43% in college to 48% at Dallas? Almost nobody does that, either. Why don’t you explain that to me, first.
I would say that Steve Nash is one-of-a-kind. I don’t know much about him. But here is some information from the NBA Register.
Nash was born in South Africa. He played high school ball in Canada. Then he went to college in the U.S. That is a little different from most NBA players.
I don’t know how long he lived in South Africa, but maybe he did not play a lot of basketball as a kid. I have no idea, so I am just speculating. Maybe nobody taught him how to shoot until he was a teenager, or something.
How do you explain someone that is pretty much an exception to the rule? Nash is one-of-a-kind.
How would you explain his steady improvement in fg% from college to Dallas to Phoenix? Basically, that just doesn’t happen very often.
January 16th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
As a little non-sequiter, let’s try the hackneyed Player A v. Player B comparison in terms of playoff stats.
Player A: 29.8 PPG, 6.8 RPG, 5.8 APG, 1.48 steals per game, 1.24 blocks per game, true shooting percentage: 53.8%
Player B: 22.6 PPG, 4.8 RPG, 4.4 APG, 1.35 steals per game, .75 blocks per game, true shooting percentage: 52.1%.
Player A is the alleged playoff choke artist Tracy McGrady. Player B is the “best” player in the game Kobe Bryant.
January 16th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
“You make zero argument that Nash’s fg% would fall.”
I, others, and even you, but you won’t admit it, have made arguments as to why Nash’s % would fall. He would receive greater defensive attention, but you don’t think defense affects shooting %. The reason for his being an object of greater defensive scrutiny would also the reason why he’d probably be taking more shots: the team would need his offense more than Phoenix currently does. But you don’t think he has the luxury in Phoenix to be judicious with his shots because, again, you don’t think defense has anything to do with shooting %. He would be playing with players who demonstrate horrible off-the-ball movement and on a team with little semblance of an offense (you know, plays designed to find players higher % shots?), therefore he’d have fewer passing options, and, yes, poorer shooters to pass to. But, given that he’s a very good POINT GUARD, he’d probably still get better shots for his players than our POINT GUARDS currently do–but according to you, that wouldn’t affect their shooting % at all.
January 16th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
How does Ray Allen compare with Kobe in terms of playoff stats?
Ray Allen: 24.9 PPG, 4.8 RPG, 4.8 APG, 1.32 steals per game, 1.82 assist to turnover ratio, true shooting percentage: 60.2%.
Celtics fans should be feeling pretty good about their chances to win a championship.
January 16th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Moffet: All I can say to your latest post is, what a load of crap.
January 16th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Make an argument to counter it. I’ve seen zero from you.
January 16th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Don’t know why you’ve grabbed onto Nash lately but here’s an interesting little excersice. Look at the Phoenix Suns FG% the season before Nash moved there from Dallas and then the season after Nash moved there.
Season before Nash Arrives: FG% = 44.3%, 19.3 Assts per game.
Season After Nash Arrives: FG% = 47.8%, 23.5 Assts per game.
Then you can look at each of the major individual players and how their FG% were impacted by getting rid of a chucker PG like Marbury and adding a play maker like Nash.
Amare: 47.5% before, 55.9% After
Marion: 44.0% before, 47.6% After
Johnson: 43.0% before, 46.1% After
Interesting how the team overall and the major scorers all improved their FG% with the addition of a playmaking PG like Nash.
Would be interesting to look at a couple other teams and the impact on the major players, where a good play making PG was added to the mix.
The Phoenix situation just goes to show how adding a good PG can impact the shooing percentages of everyone around them.
January 16th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Then you can look at each of the major individual players and how their FG% were impacted by getting rid of a chucker PG like Marbury and adding a play maker like Nash.
- Hmmm…despite the fact that Dipper will not address the point…you can do the same thing when looking at NJ pre-Kidd and post-Kidd.
The Phoenix situation just goes to show how adding a good PG can impact the shooing percentages of everyone around them.
- I would argue the Phoenix situation just goes to show that adding a good PG and adding an offensive scheme that focuses on getting good shots leads to an increase in FG%…unforunately for Dipper he things that a good FG% is isolated from all other areas of the game…hard to argue with someone that believes something so strongly that is so factually untrue…
January 16th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
and adding an offensive scheme that focuses on getting good shots leads
Yeah, that is a good addition. Change in offensive philosophy can make a big difference too. I wasn’t aware of other changes going on in Phoenix at the time. Was just looking at the raw stats from back then.
January 16th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
unforunately for Dipper he things that a good FG% is isolated from all other areas of the game…
Yes, it just baffles me how someone can cling so tightly to the belief that a player’s FG% is completely isolated from the impact of all the other variables (ie. player combinations, shot selection, players role in the offense, etc.) present in a game.
January 16th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
I can’t believe you guys are still arguing with this Dipper character. I remember he pulled this act before a while back, and the argument didn’t end until everyone gave up and wrote him off as a troll. What’s the purpose of arguing with someone who’s entire premise is based on a complete lack of understanding of the game (not to mention cause-effect reasoning)? More power to you Frozenropers for trying, but I hope you realize that theres really nobody to convince here. Dipper’s not going to come around and I’m pretty sure nobody else gives a shit anymore.
January 16th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Myk who were the teams A and B in your comment? I don’t want to hunt for it.
Alex your McGrady / Bryant comparison in playoffs is interesting. Up to last year McGrady could use the excuse of lack of second star to seek understanding about no playoff series wins.
But that also allows his scoring average to be higher while Bryant split the ball with Shaq.
McGrady 32 playoff games, all in first round (probably the easiest to score in) Bryant 131 (including a high proportion in tougher later rounds).
Looking at McGrady is elimination games might be useful but I won’t pursue it.
Maybe Kobe is a bit overrated in playoffs. I hadn’t looked at his playoff offensive in detail before but I’ve generally agreed with those who say that he won with Shaq and his game isn’t enough to win as the sole star. Almost no one’s is, especially non-bigs.
January 16th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Also eliminate playoff games thru age 21 and Kobe looks pretty much even.
January 16th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Crow, good call on eliminating games through age 21. However, that McGrady is still equal to Kobe, even with that statistical adjustment, suggests that perhaps McGrady is not actually a poor playoff performer. The Garnett-Duncan comparison in the playoffs is also fairly close if you eliminate Garnett’s first two playoff series as a 19 and 20 year old.
January 16th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Myk who were the teams A and B in your comment? I don’t want to hunt for it.
They are the New Jersey Nets teams before and after the Kidd/Marbury trade. You can do the same comparisons pre-Nash post Nash as well. Marburry is actually a very good example of why just shooting a higher FG% is not a factor in being ab etter player.
January 16th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Crow, good call on eliminating games through age 21. However, that McGrady is still equal to Kobe, even with that statistical adjustment, suggests that perhaps McGrady is not actually a poor playoff performer. The Garnett-Duncan comparison in the playoffs is also fairly close if you eliminate Garnett’s first two playoff series as a 19 and 20 year old.
- There is no such thing as a cluch playoff performer due to the simple lack of sample size. It reminds me of how Randy Johnson has gone from the most clutch pitcher (95 Mariners) to a choker (97-00) and then clutch pitcher again (01 DBacks) to choker again…
Same with Greg Maddux
January 16th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
I am not sure if Dipper or others checked the link I provided earlier.
Here is the current top 20 on TS%
True Shooting Pct
1. Josh Childress-ATL .669
2. Andrew Bynum-LAL .659
3. Steve Nash-PHO .643
4. Mike Miller-MEM .642
5. Daniel Gibson-CLE .640
6. Amare Stoudemire-PHO .633
7. Andris Biedrins-GSW .630
8. Dwight Howard-ORL .623
9. Tyson Chandler-NOH .620
10. Chauncey Billups-DET .620
11. Mike Dunleavy-IND .609
12. Joel Przybilla-POR .608
13. Jason Terry-DAL .607
14. Jason Kapono-TOR .604
15. Kevin Garnett-BOS .602
16. Kendrick Perkins-BOS .601
17. Ronnie Brewer-UTA .601
18. John Salmons-SAC .598
19. Jason Maxiell-DET .598
20. Deron Williams-UTA .597
I’d make Childress a strong offer. I assume San Antonio will. Not sure how much Atlanta will offer or match. Maybe they will be smart and match. Maybe not given the glut of wings.
Salmons rewarded Petrie’s gamble/investment.
Brewer proved the critics of his shooting wrong.
Most of these guys aren’t moving.
Wally not that far off at 57%, best on team. He could stay the full 2 years til Durant’s gets to higher level.
Presti might stay with lots of contracts til summer 09 and be a big player then or later.
January 16th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Thanks myk.
Dallas with Nash and running game worked fine on offense but poor defense and no championship. Dallas without Nash was down in year 1 efficiency 3 spots but defense improved by 17. And in year 2 they were back at #1 on offense while retaining the good defense. The distributed passing responsiblity and a stronger emphasis on guys who could get their own shot worked a different than with Nash but it worked as well. And the greater emphasis on defenders at center and overall team and coaching effort on defense instead of just being confident in outscoring people worked.
January 16th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
I agree with you myk that except for players with a certain level of playoff games the small sample size hinders fair judgments. Matchups matter.
I am comfortable talking about playoff performance of guys with 100+ games. Maybe 50+.
January 16th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
wasn’t Dipper the one who said that dribbling has no effect on shooting and tried to compare rashard with durant, not taking into account kevin’s superior ball-handling skills?
January 16th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Alex I agree with is some basis for thinking that the McGrady criticism can be overdone. He is a big scorer and when he wants to and is healthy he has defended. The non-stellar shooting is the main stat to criticize. The demeanor and comments suggests a player who isn’t as hungry for team victory as some of the other greats. That is a subjective take but it will stick with most until he wins a good amount in playoffs and time is running out.
January 16th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
TS% top 20 is pretty evenly distributed among positions. Different ways to score efficiently. Most good teams have a couple efficient scorers and some variety and see synergy from that as discussed with NJ last season or the Suns in general or Spurs, etc.
January 16th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Thanks, Crow. In all this “Nash is God” talk, it’s nice to see someone mention that the Mavs were still a pretty damn good team after he left.
January 16th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Efficiency of Wally, Wilcox, even Collison when he is on may fit pretty well with Durant- for a time …. apart with defensive issues. It’d be nice if PG was efficient or a strong defender or both.
January 16th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
I am comfortable talking about playoff performance of guys with 100+ games. Maybe 50+.
- I still have a hard time because although a guy like Kobe might play 100+ playoff games. He only plays at most 15 games at a time with the same team…therefore, I don’t think you can use past experience to predict what he can do in the future.
I’d make Childress a strong offer. I assume San Antonio will. Not sure how much Atlanta will offer or match. Maybe they will be smart and match. Maybe not given the glut of wings.
- I’d love to have Childress on our team…
January 16th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Thanks, Crow. In all this “Nash is God” talk, it’s nice to see someone mention that the Mavs were still a pretty damn good team after he left.
- Where did the Nash as God talk come in…I must’ve missed those posts…??
January 16th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Nash is very valuable as a shooter and passer but if Nash nevers wins a championship it will probably because the team defense wasn’t enough and the defensive pressure from the point is a big part of that.
Suns have had versatile Marion and added Bell. But Stoudemire is pretty much the worse defender on team. Skinner is close to best and might be adequate replacement for Thomas - buit the point was/is (I think) they still needed more defense in the mix than that. Hill didnt add to that, maybe they should have focused on a defensive additon who plays.
Peak 90s Sonics were a very strong balance of offense and defense and it started with GP on both ends.
January 16th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
“And when there are people around who say things like “Jason Kidd is the best point guard in the NBA,” or “JJ Redick has the best shot in the NBA,” I think that there are people around who just don’t get it. ”
Who says he’s the best PG in the NBA? I do agree with the fact that he puts everyone on his team in better positions to make plays, than if it were say…I don’t know..Earl Watson. Shooting is an important part of basketball, but that’s not all there is to this game, that’s what’s frustrating about your simplistic views of the sport.
January 16th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Sorry Myk, I meant to say “Midas”.
January 16th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
“wasn’t Dipper the one who said that dribbling has no effect on shooting and tried to compare rashard with durant, not taking into account kevin’s superior ball-handling skills? ”
Yeah, that was the most rediculous discussion I’ve been involved with on this blog.
January 16th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
OK. I have some other things to do this afternoon, and I just got back from one of them. But I’m not going away. There will just be some delays in my posts.
This is very time consuming, looking up stats for various players on different teams which they played on. I looked up one which I remembered which applies to this debate.
I liked Utah fairly well when they had Stockton and Malone. I hope everyone here agrees that Stockton was a great point guard. I assume you would make the same argument for Stockton that you make for Nash and Kidd — “he makes everyone else on his team better.” Yeah, right.
Well, Utah never had enough talent to win a title, but they kept trying to find that “missing piece to the puzzle.” In 95-96 they added Chris Morris, who had been with New Jersey. When they picked him up I said, “NOOOOO. He can’t shoot. You don’t want Chris Morris.” Many people, like you clowns here, thought that playing with Stockton would make Morris a better shooter.
Here are the stats on Chris Morris:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/m/morrich01.html
Now does anyone want to argue that playing with Stockton made Chris Morris a better player?
You can see the exact numbers for yourself, but just a few highlights: with N.J. Morris’s 2 best shooting seasons were .481, and .477. In his 3 years at Utah, playing with Stockton, Morris shot .437, .408 and .411.
Did Stockton “make Morris a better shooter”?
I still can’t believe Utah wasted those 3 seasons with a loser like Chris Morris. Utah thought he was the last piece in the puzzle.
I tried to tell them: HE CAN’T SHOOT. Nobody listened.
January 16th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
The Big Dipper said: “I stopped watching college basketball a long time ago. I don’t follow the draft. I have no idea if there was any player better than Durant in the draft or not. Obviously, I think Oden is a far better player than Durant…”
Speaking of the stupidest things ever posted…
Let me get this straight.
You haven’t watched college ball in years.
You don’t follow the draft.
So you have obviously never seen Greg Oden play if both of these hold true.
So how on earth is Oden a better player than Durant if you’ve got nothing to judge him off, other than the fact that he’s a few inches taller?
January 16th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/c/chambto01.html
Tom Chambers played 2 seasons with Stockton.
Chambers’ career fg%: .468
Chambers fg% in his 2 seasons with Stockton: .440 and .447.
Ok, Chambers was past his prime when he played for Utah. I agree. Still, no fountain of youth from playing with Stockton.
January 16th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
It may be that strong assist men help “finishers” and “runners” and maybe “post players” more than they help jumpshooters - like Morris.
January 16th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Martin: well, genius, I guess you couldn’t figure this out, but I looked at their fg% in college. Plus, I saw Oden play in the NCAA tournament.
From their college stats, I say that Oden is the better player. You might not like that, but so what? I think I’ll be proven correct.
January 16th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Especially mid range on non-strong 3 pt shooters. Morris was weak on both.
He had size and might have been the best they could get but I agree it was a choice that didn’t have a strong case to succeed and it didn’t.
January 16th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/h/hornaje01.html
Jeff Hornacek.
I’m leaving for a short while now, but it looks to me like Horny was a pretty damn good shooter in Phoenix, before he was a pretty damn good shooter with Stockton in Utah. I’ll let you calculate if his fg% went up from playing with Stockton or not.
January 16th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
I never liked Chris Morris, and playing with Stockton did not make him any better, in my opinion.
January 16th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Duncan’s career playoff stats (105 games): 23.8 ppg, 13 rpg, 3.6 apg, 2.7 bpg, .66 spg, true shooting percentage: 55%.
Garnett’s career playoff stats after he turned 21 (29 games): 23.5 ppg, 14.2 rpb, 5.3 apg, 1.55 bpg, 1.41 spg, true shooting percentage: 51.2%.
January 16th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
The Big Dipper said: “Martin: well, genius, I guess you couldn’t figure this out, but I looked at their fg% in college. Plus, I saw Oden play in the NCAA tournament.
From their college stats, I say that Oden is the better player. You might not like that, but so what? I think I’ll be proven correct.
January 16th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
The Big Dipper said: “Martin: well, genius, I guess you couldn’t figure this out, but I looked at their fg% in college. Plus, I saw Oden play in the NCAA tournament.
From their college stats, I say that Oden is the better player. You might not like that, but so what? I think I’ll be proven correct. ”
I’m not even going to bother flaming this. There’s going to be plenty of others doing it for me, given the small sample size and the reliance on statistics.
January 16th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Just say no to double posts.
January 16th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Martin: well, genius, I guess you couldn’t figure this out, but I looked at their fg% in college
Of course, why bother to watch basketball games when the entire sport can be summed up with one stat.
You should consider offering your services to front offices around the league as a talent evaluator. If nothing else, you would at least save them a ton of time and money wasted on scouting.
January 16th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
The playoff stats look very close between Duncan and Garnett.
Defensively, you cannot go wrong with either guy. However, I think I’d rather have Garnett defensively in a series against Dallas but would rather have Duncan defensively against teams with more traditional post players. Duncan’s biggest advantage over Garnett statistically is blocks per game. However, Garnett is the more versatile defender and may present a tougher mathcup for a big man in the mold of Dirk Nowitzski (sp?) than Tim Duncan. KG’s greater defensive versatility may account for his sizable advantage in steals over Duncan.
Offensively, Duncan is clearly the more dominant one-on-one offensive player. However, Garnett is the more, for the lack of a better term, unselfish player among the two as demonstrated by his huge advantage in assists per game. The disparity is even more surprising considering the quality of Garnett’s teammates when compared to Duncan’s teammates.
Rebounding, I’d consider them even. The true shooting percentage disparity may partially be explained by comparing the quality of teammates. Teams could hone their defenses on Garnett while they couldn’t do the same with Duncan as Tim has played with a top-sixteen player in terms of wins produced for almost half of his career.
Bottom line: One guy has four titles, the other guy doesn’t. We’ll see what happens this April.
January 16th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
“he makes everyone else on his team better.” Yeah, right.
dipper, I’m not sure who you lifted that quote from, but I don’t believe I’ve said anywhere in this thread that a great PG makes EVERYONE on his team better. Absolute statements are rarely true 100% of the time.
Anyhoooo… Your arguement now seems to be morphing from FG% being a completely isolated stat that is not impacted by any surrounding variables, into cherry picking extreme examples to argue against.
There are always exceptions to every rule and as I said, I don’t believe your quote was from me and I don’t portray to know much about Chris Morris, but from the looks of things his career was headed down before he got to Utah, as his FG% was 41% his last season before going to Utah. Funny thing is, his FG% immediately jumped to 43.7% his first year in Utah, before tailing off as his role declined and he became a bench player. I wouldn’t expect you to consider there were “other factors” that might have actually had an influence on your example.
Since cherry picking examples appears to be the flavor of the day so I’ll see your Chris Morris and raise you one Donyell Marshall.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/m/marshdo01.html
Is it a coincidence that Marshall experienced his two highest FG% seasons (50.3% and 51.9% where way above his career average of 43.6% or any other single season in his career) while playing in Utah with John Stockon?
January 16th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
“From their college stats, I say that Oden is the better player. You might not like that, but so what? I think I’ll be proven correct. ”
Based on this theory, I’m assuming you would pick Joakim Noah at #2 instead of Durant. Afterall, Joakim shot 62% from the field in college, therefore Joakim is more “skilled” and is the better shooter than Durant.
Your response to this should be amusing.
January 16th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Myk, Kobe has already played in over 100 playoff games.
January 16th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
See, cherry picking player stats doesn’t prove a thing.
I still don’t know who supposedly said that playing with a great PG will improve everyones FG% one hundred percent of the time?
I don’t know, maybe when your other arguement was going bad you decided to change the topic to this one. Maybe you just needed a straw man arguement that you could cherry pick some player FG% stats against and claim a moral victory. Whatever works for you I guess.
January 16th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Morris’s career fg% was .441. He shot under that every season with Utah, where he shot .437, .408, .411. After shooting .411 in his last season with Utah, he went to Phoenix, where he shot .430. What does that prove?
I am cherry picking? You are the one who chose Mikki Moore to “prove” that Jason Kidd makes his teammates better. Talk about cherry picking! Miki Moore was a nobody who never played more than 16.8 min/game until he went to N.J. and played 26.4 min/game. His career fg% is .538, and he shot .609 with N.J. last year. Interestingly enough, the other season where he averaged the most min/game — 1999-2000 with Detroit, Mikki Moore shot .621. So, was it Jason Kidd, or was it playing time?
I gave you Chris Morris, Tom Chambers and Hornacek, all significant players, who I knew played seasons with Utah and with other teams. None of those shot better with Utah than with the other teams they spent multiple seasons with. Morris and Chambers shot worse with Stockton.
As time permits — probably not until tomorrow — I will look at other players.
Donyell Marshall is an interesting case. A good find by you. However, Marshall had 2 of his worst 3-pt shooting years in Utah. He shot .320 and .310 with Utah, versus a career 3-pt % of .349. I would like to see Marshall’s effective fg% each year for his career. Many seasons he took more than half of his 3-pt shots from behind the arc, which obviously lowers your overall fg%. At Utah he took only 1 out of 9 fga from 3-pt range. For his career he took 1 out of 4 fga from 3-pt range. You think that might have something to do with his fg% in Utah? Jerry Sloan did not like taking a lot of 3-pt shots, so Marshall’s overall fg% went up. You think that could be the reason?
January 16th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
FG% is a factor. No doubt. To Dipper’s point the better the FG% the better. I don’t think that can be disputed. But its not everything. Thats a huge oversimplification.
Steve Scheffler ended his college career as the all time leader in career FG%.
January 17th, 2008 at 9:32 am
FG% is a factor. No doubt. To Dipper’s point the better the FG% the better. I don’t think that can be disputed. But its not everything. Thats a huge oversimplification.
You are exactly right, Menace. The entertaining part is that throughout this whole discussion dipper has not been able to grasp that simple concept. FG% while a good stat, is far from static and is impacted by many variables that play out on the court.
January 17th, 2008 at 9:56 am
Well, at least we have established that point guards like Jason Kidd and John Stockton do not make their teammates better shooters. So we can dispense with that nonsense from now on. Or are you still unable to grasp that simple concept?
Little by little, I will teach you the game of basketball.
January 17th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Little by little, I will teach you the game of basketball.
The only thing you have taught anyone in this conversation is that you view the game of basketball completely through a stat sheet and have almost no concept of what is actually going on, on the court.
It is unfortunate, because one without the other is only seeing half the game.
January 17th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Oh, almost forgot the most important thing “you’ve established” is that FG% is only slightly less broad of a measure of success for a team than “scoring more points than the other team”.
Unfortunately, as you pointed out, FG% is only accurate as a measure of success for a team 80% of the time while “scoring more points than the other team” is accurate 100% of the time.
Now that we’ve beat that dead horse into oblivion, shall we move on to more specific discussions like how to actually improve the Sonics roster?
A good AK five team fantasy trade scenario would probably fit nicely in the discussion here.
January 17th, 2008 at 10:44 am
“Little by little, I will teach you the game of basketball.”
You mean HORSE.
January 17th, 2008 at 11:15 am
The fact that you can not distinguish between “scoring more points” and “how do you score more points” is pathetic.
Shooting efficiently is one of the ways in which you can score more points. To claim that “shooting better than the other team” is the same thing as “scoring more points than the other team” is just flat-out stupid. These are two separate things. There are games where the team which shoots better does not score more points. Hence the two things are not one and the same, genius.
The answer to the question of “how do you score more points than the other team?” is the key to building a winning team. It is critical in selecting what players to choose in the draft, in free agency, or in trades. If you are aware that shooting better is the key to scoring more points, then you will acquire players who are good shooters. The fact that teams often acquire players who are bad shooters proves that not everyone understands that shooting is the most important skill.
The fact that some people think that Jason Kidd is a great player proves that not everyone understands that shooting is the most important skill.
The fact that the Sonics took Luke Ridnour in the first round proves that they did not understand that shooting is the most important skill.
So, if you guys can’t comprehend this, it is no great loss. Hopefully, by proving over and over that I am right, someone connected to the Sonics will start to see the light, and the players the Sonics acquire in the near future will be player who CAN SHOOT. Not more Luke Ridnours, or Earl Watsons.
January 17th, 2008 at 11:45 am
To claim that “shooting better than the other team” is the same thing as “scoring more points than the other team” is just flat-out stupid.
Apparently reading comprehension is another of your “not so strong” suits.
slightly less broad of a measure of success
does not equal
is the same thing
January 17th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
You are leaning, grasshopper.
January 17th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
“The fact that you can not distinguish between ’scoring more points’ and ‘how do you score more points’ is pathetic.”
That’s funny, because you can’t seem distinguish between “scoring efficiently” and “how do you score more efficiently.” Pathetic.
January 17th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
You score more efficiently by shooting a high percentage.
We already proved that playing with guys like Kidd and Stockton does not improve players’ shooting efficiency. So what’s you theory, genius?
I already know the answer: get players who can shoot. Why don’t you illustrate to me how any other method works. That should keep you busy for a while.
January 18th, 2008 at 7:55 am
You either haven’t read any of the posts above or you’re being willful. No one has denied that good shooters are preferable to bad ones, not at least as such, but the logical extension of your high-%-exclusive argument obviates every other aspect of the game that, in fact, makes it the game it is and not something like HORSE instead. What makes a point guard a good point guard, Dipper? Shooting and shooting alone? Then his being a point guard is neither here nor there. He’s just a guard. What else is good coaching and good play making for if not to get good shots for players? Your position, the logical extension of it, is that neither is of any consequence to shooting and thus to the game. Five good shooters with no coaching, no plays, no handles, no passing, no court vision, etc., will maintain the same shooting % they demonstrated on teams that had those things, because none of those things impacts shooting. That’s your stated position. Genius.
April 17th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
[...] knee injury last night. Nick Collison was a beast tonight, leading the Sonics in both pointhttp://sonicscentral.com/blog/?p=1645Darby, Florence send grapplers to state Ravalli Republ [...]