Pompous words from Kblaze volume 422: If you can prove it you are probably wrong.

[QUOTE=GOBB]Your replies say it all.



Insecure much?



Like I said you are concerned too much about how a poster makes you feel.



Nothing to instigate. Just find your complaining in here annoying and pointless.[/QUOTE]
You aren't instigating, yet on the last page you claimed "I am the type of person who just looks for something to argue." Come on GOBB.

Im so unimportant you feel the need to come and discuss it? You know what I do with unimportant things that are of no interest to me? Disregard them. why would I discuss something that isnt interesting? Just seems to be in conflict. Oh well.

I suggest a 360 2k10 game for the right to be a picky douche on ISH. Loser has to show common sense enough to ignore the things he doesnt like instead of argue with them which will generate more of what he supposedly doesnt like.

Care to go one on one with the great one for the rights to be ISHs most abrasive jackass?

[QUOTE=hayden695]You aren't instigating, yet on the last page you claimed "I am the type of person who just looks for something to argue." Come on GOBB.[/QUOTE]
That's all he provides the boards, and it's been like that for sometime. I hate to speculate on his life outside of the interwebs but jesus ... lots of hate in that one's heart. LOL

Back to the thread topic. Something that bothers me even more then people using in-game stats as the end-all be-all to determine the effectiveness of a player is when people use Combine results to try and predict how good a player will be. Like the [URL="http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=175209"]John Wall[/URL] thread (though that poster obviously has an agenda).

At least in game statistics are measuring performance on the court. Combine results are just arbitrary tests in a clinical setting thats completely separated from actually game play.

[QUOTE=Samurai Swoosh]That's all he provides the boards, and it's been like that for sometime. I hate to speculate on his life outside of the interwebs but jesus ... lots of hate in that one's heart. LOL[/QUOTE]
Actually I think GOBB posts quite a bit of good to great knowledgable posts. Just that made me laugh.

[QUOTE=pete's montreux]I didn't even realize what I was doing. Just like you, I'd take my guys over your guys 10 out of 10 times, but that's just how we are, I guess. For me, you only have one go-to-shooter and that's Manu. We have three. Don't underestimate Eddie. I've never in my life seen someone get as hot as Eddie, and I've also never seen someone go cold so fast, either.

Both great championships teams, though.[/QUOTE]

Boston did have great 3 point shooters, can't disagree with you. What I like better about the Spur is, they had more role players who could stroke it. You had your core (Duncan Ginobli Parker), and then you had your Bowen's, Barry's, Jackson's, Kerr's. Obviously I'm grouping players from different years but you get my drift, hopefully.

With the Celtics, one of their core guys (Allen) was meant to take a bulk of 3's, and you're left with only Eddie House. So if Ray's killing you from 3, well he's a star and he was supposed to. If Bowen or Barry are killing you from 3.. you pretty much lost.

I'm a Suns fan FYI so the Spurs are somewhat the opposite of "my guys" (To say the least, Ha!). And no, I would never underestimate Eddie House. Him and JR Smith are two of the most dangerous shooters in the league when they're hot. Out of the role-players especially.

[quote=joe]Boston did have great 3 point shooters, can't disagree with you. What I like better about the Spur is, they had more role players who could stroke it. You had your core (Duncan Ginobli Parker), and then you had your Bowen's, Barry's, Jackson's, Kerr's. Obviously I'm grouping players from different years but you get my drift, hopefully.

With the Celtics, one of their core guys (Allen) was meant to take a bulk of 3's, and you're left with only Eddie House. So if Ray's killing you from 3, well he's a star and he was supposed to. If Bowen or Barry are killing you from 3.. you pretty much lost.

I'm a Suns fan FYI so the Spurs are somewhat the opposite of "my guys" (To say the least, Ha!). And no, I would never underestimate Eddie House. Him and JR Smith are two of the most dangerous shooters in the league when they're hot. Out of the role-players especially.[/quote]

Can't really compare them if you're going classic and naming the Kerr's. I've got one season to go off of, basically. :lol

[QUOTE]Kid is probably still sore about Ben>Hinrich[/QUOTE]

Pretty much. I had an argument with dude before and he got all butt hurt. So whenever dude replies to my posts its some nutty evaluation rant of me as a poster, and human being offline. Dude competing with D.Wade ex wife on not letting sh!t go and moving on.

[QUOTE=hayden695]Actually I think GOBB posts quite a bit of good to great knowledgable posts. Just that made me laugh.[/QUOTE]

I find it annoying when posters hold grudges from previous discussions where they disagreed. I also find it annoying I look and see threads not worthy of a reply get replies (see Rekindles threads). Or threads from a regular like konex [I]"Does Kobe get enough credit for the 3peat?"[/I] in 2010. Combination of crap threads where posters dont use thier brains and someone complaining about a thread well thought out. And not so much of the content but the poster because they cant get over a past argument. Its dumb.

[QUOTE=GOBB]Pretty much. I had an argument with dude before and he got all butt hurt. So whenever dude replies to my posts its some nutty evaluation rant of me as a poster, and human being offline. Dude competing with D.Wade ex wife on not letting sh!t go and moving on.



I find it annoying when posters hold grudges from previous discussions where they disagreed. I also find it annoying I look and see threads not worthy of a reply get replies (see Rekindles threads). Or threads from a regular like konex [I]"Does Kobe get enough credit for the 3peat?"[/I] in 2010. Combination of crap threads where posters dont use thier brains and someone complaining about a thread well thought out. And not so much of the content but the poster because they cant get over a past argument. Its dumb.[/QUOTE]
I agree completely. I really don't understand the obsession with making threads on topics that we all saw a couple years ago. Especially about Kobe. I can understand for teams or whatever from decades ago.

[QUOTE=pete's montreux]Can't really compare them if you're going classic and naming the Kerr's. I've got one season to go off of, basically. :lol[/QUOTE]

Yeah you're right, that wasn't a fair comparison. I'll just go off of one season.


2007 Spurs (their best 3 shooting team)..

3 guys over 100 3's hit (128, 128, 104), 4 others with at least 30 (89, 50, 36, 33).


2008 Celtics..

4 guys over 100 3's hit (180, 143, 117, 106), 0 others with at least 30.


Does this make the Spurs better necessarily? No, but I thought their wealth of shooters was a huge advantage. Especially when only one of the seven players I alluded to is considered a star (Manu). Why does that matter? Because when the Spurs shot the ball well from three, it was in [I]addition[/I] to Duncan, Parker, and Manu scoring buckets/making plays. When the Celtics hit 3's, many times that [I]was [/I]their stars scoring buckets and making plays.

Does that distinction make sense?

Both teams shot 38% from three, but I like the Spurs many decent shooters over the Celtics top-heavyness.

And I feel it's necessary to say.. I have no "agenda." Nothing but respect for those 2008 Celtics!



[B][url]http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAS/2007.html[/url]

[url]http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/2008.html[/url][/B]

[QUOTE=Leviathon1121]The mid range game doesn't win you basketball games? I am not sure how it is possible to be this far off with an opinion.

Kobe Bryant : Excellent mid range game
Michael Jordan : Excellent mid range game
Hakeem : Excellent mid range game
Tim Duncan : Excellent mid range game (Gotten a lot worse with age)

What do these have in common? 16 of the last 20 NBA championships featured players who's mid range game is one of the best in the league. I wonder why that is? Could it be because is wreaks havoc on defenses? Probably not since you claimed it is basically a useless skill.

These guys commanded double teams before they were near the paint, killing defenses and setting up wide open shots for their team. Not what wins you basketball games? You have got to be kidding me.

Like KBlaze pointed out, any formula that puts Steve Kerr ahead of Kareem simply because he shoots a lot of threes is very flawed somewhere.[/QUOTE]

Once again you try and turn this into an individual player analysis, that's a no no. When we talk about championships we talk about teams, not players on an individual basis.

And you point out any formula that puts Steve Kerr ahead of KAJ is flawed, which is wrong. What's flawed is your way of interpreting and understanding the stat in correlation with other important stats.

[QUOTE]
I was wondering about that recently. How much the teams that make a lot of threes win when it matters. And while ive only checked the last 11 years so far....its not looking good. Im gonna wait till ive checked all 30 to confirm what I assume is the case. I'll tll you this though...


The 04 Pistons made only 333 threes. Of the 7 teams to make 365 and under...4 of them were in the conference finals. Of the 6 teams to make 500+...5 of them were either lottery teams or out in the first round.

I'll get back to you when ive looked into that a little more fully...but unless the Suns or Magic win it all im not sure there has ever been a team that was top 5 in made threes and won the title(least lately...back when 100 threes was a lot for a team perhaps). Not sure where the Lakers and Celtics were this year though. Since im not done I wont say for sure. Just been glancing through the years....[/QUOTE]

I see what you're trying to do, but your'e going about it the wrong way.

I want to start out by saying that's it's not all 3pointer and FT's that matter. What you want to look at is the 4 factors of basketball. eFG%, Off rebounding rate, turnover rate and free throws. These 4 factors go both defensively and offensively. If you want to win basketball games you better do well in these factors, and if you're lacking in one you better make it up in the other categories.

First and foremost it's defense that wins championships. So let's see how these teams did defending the 3pt line and FT's.
Let's do the 05 season, the last season before the hand checking rules went into effect if i'm not mistaking.

I'm going to use regular season stats because it's a larger sample.

Finals matchup: Pistons vs Spurs

[U]Spurs[/U] [U]Pistons[/U]
Pace(slowest): 8 2
Defensive rating: 1 3
Offensive rating: 9 17
Opp. eFG% 1 5
Opp. 3pt att 1 4
Opp. 3ptFG% 25(2nd in playff.) 5
Opp. FT att: 6 2
Points allowed: 1 2

[U]Analysis of the stats[/U]

The Spurs:

SA did a crazy good job that season of not allowing 3pt shots, they where #1 with 881 att. against, allowing 190 fewer than #2 and 679 fewer than #30

Along with that they where 6th in FTatt allowed.

Combining these 2 you can figure you that when teams played against the Spurs that season they basically lived in the mid-range area, and it lead to SA being #1 defensively.

The pistons:

Detroit where #4 in opp. 3ptAtt and 5th in opp. 3pt%, so they did a good job of both allowing few 3pt shots, but also making the opponent shoot a bad % from 3.

They where also #2 in opp. FT att and #5 in opp. FG%

From that we can conclude that Detroit did a good job of not allowing other teams shooting 3's and when they did they still shot a bad %. Along with that their opp. didn't get a lot of FT's. So again it equals out to letting their opponents do most of their work in the mid-range area and it lead to them being #2 defensively.

But once again I want to point out that what really matters is the 4 factors of basketball which you need to do well in to succeed. And once again i want to point out that that you can lack in one and still do well as long as you're making it up in the others. For example if you're shooting a bad eFG% you can make up for it by getting a lot of offensive rebounds, or by creating more turnovers and therefore more shots for your team.


To finish my post off I want to say that of course you need to be able to shoot well mid-range. In a perfect basketball game you would do nothing but shoot layups and corner 3s but of course it doesn't work that way as you become predictable if you only try and do the two. So you'll automatically shoot mid-range 2's during games but it won't be what wins games for you. Game planning for maximizing your- and limiting the opponents rim shots and corner 3's will though.

[QUOTE=Samurai Swoosh]That's all he provides the boards, and it's been like that for sometime. I hate to speculate on his life outside of the interwebs but jesus ... lots of hate in that one's heart. LOL[/QUOTE]

He seems perfectly nice to me, he comes down on people who says stupid things in one fell swoop. that makes sense to me, you say your piece and are gone. Unlike what you are doing, PICK PICK PICK PICK after every post.

Let it go.

I agree with K-Blaze. The current crop of internet posters can not analyze the game of basketball without resorting to statistics to come to oft unfounded conclusions. What is even more troubling is that many dont have a background in statical analysis so it becomes even more troubling(many here really don't even grasp the simple concept of causation v. correlation). Basketball isnt like baseball and isnt conducive to that type of analysis or better yet isnt conducive to extreme reliance on stats.

Over reliance on stats had ISH dickriding Jose Calderon for his 50/40/90 high assist to turnover season, but they could not understand that a point guard that is too conservative is counter productive. Point guards must be dynamic and take risks from time to time.

[quote=joe]Yeah you're right, that wasn't a fair comparison. I'll just go off of one season.


2007 Spurs (their best 3 shooting team)..

3 guys over 100 3's hit (128, 128, 104), 4 others with at least 30 (89, 50, 36, 33).


2008 Celtics..

4 guys over 100 3's hit (180, 143, 117, 106), 0 others with at least 30.


Does this make the Spurs better necessarily? No, but I thought their wealth of shooters was a huge advantage. Especially when only one of the seven players I alluded to is considered a star (Manu). Why does that matter? Because when the Spurs shot the ball well from three, it was in [I]addition[/I] to Duncan, Parker, and Manu scoring buckets/making plays. When the Celtics hit 3's, many times that [I]was [/I]their stars scoring buckets and making plays.

Does that distinction make sense?

Both teams shot 38% from three, but I like the Spurs many decent shooters over the Celtics top-heavyness.

And I feel it's necessary to say.. I have no "agenda." Nothing but respect for those 2008 Celtics!



[B][URL="http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAS/2007.html"]http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAS/2007.html[/URL]

[URL="http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/2008.html"]http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/2008.html[/URL][/B][/quote]

I never looked at it that way. Good point, no really.

The problem with a lot of the arguing on this board is that its stat based, and anyone who does analysis (like me) can find points to support their argument. And its compounded by the fact people trust stats even when it goes against their eyes, and also don't trust those people who watch the team day in and day out. I remember Celtic fans arguing with me to death that Marbury was playing well as a Knick, well enough to be a starter caliber player. I saw him much much too much and knew that wasn't true, but to them it was, even though they never saw him. If you can argue anything, and just need two numbers to back it up, its hard to have any kind of discussion because anything can be right or wrong.

Did a little bit more research concerning TS% and it's effect on the success of teams. I was initially using basketball reference but they don't list TS% for teams, so I used another site.

Took the top 5 teams in the regular season in each of the last 4 regular seasons including this one. I'm sure you'll see the pattern.

[U]2007[/U]
1. Dallas
2. Phoenix
3. San Antonio
4. Detroit
5. Houston

Champions: San Antonio

[U]TS%[/U]

Dallas: 3
Phoenix: 1
San Antonio: 2
Detroit: 21
Houston: 17

[U]Opponent TS%[/U]
Dallas: 6
Phoenix: 8
San Antonio: 1
Detroit: 4
Houston: 2

[U]2008[/U]
1. Boston
2. Detroit
3. LA
4. NO/SA Tie
5. Phoenix

Champions: Boston

[U]TS%[/U]
Boston: 5
Detroit: 14
LA: 4
NO: 11
SA: 12
Phoenix: 1

[U]Opponent TS%[/U]
Boston: 1
Detroit: 3
LA: 7
NO: 11
SA: 4
Phoenix: 6

[U]2009[/U]
1. Cleveland
2. LA
3. Boston
4. Orlando
5. Portland/Denver Tie

Champions: Lakers

[U]TS%[/U]
Cleveland: 4
LA: 6
Boston: 2
Orlando: 5
Portland: 8
Denver: 3

[U]Opponents TS%[/U]
Cleveland: 2
LA: 6
Boston: 4
Orlando: 1
Portland: 14
Denver: 9

[U]2010[/U]
1. Cleveland
2. Orlando
3. LA
4. Dallas
5. Phoenix

[U]TS%[/U]
Cleveland: 3
Orlando:2
LA: 17
Dallas: 9
Phoenix: 1

[U]Opponents TS%[/U]
Cleveland: 3
Orlando: 1
LA: 2
Dallas: 11
Phoenix: 9

Isnt that pretty much saying that teams that make their shots while keeping the other team from making theirs tend to win? Might as well say playing basketball well makes you good at basketball.

For a team I can see how that would be a factor in winning because really all a team needs to do is outscore the opponent. For a single player compared to another there are way too many issues unrelated to the individuals.

Its almost like using simple games won and lost to judge players. You can judge a teams ability by it(for the most part). Not players.

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]Id like to take a moment to spread a layer of rich creamy douche on the toast that ISH by pointing out a number of things I feel are true and have little to no respect for your opinion if you disagree with. It has become my custom to pop up and ramble on now and then about issues nobody much cares about and after 8 years im still not tired of it. Perhaps I just love the sounds of a keyboard hard at work....

2 things before I start...

1. I type run on sentences of epic proportions so be prepared for that..

2. It is customary to at some point in my posts get bored and wander off mentally...perhaps physically. So around the time I suspect the brave few who read this to be getting sick of it....I will offer an intermission complete with 4 unrelated things I think might brighten your day.



Now...the issue at hand.


I kinda hate you all. Not individually but what you(and I) have created in the last 10 years.

Internet forums...especially sports related ones...have stopped being about sports as much as about people trying to prove this or that....arguing....repeating themselves...just in general being uninteresting stand ins for basketball fans. And do you know what did it?

Numbers and a need to be proven right.

Now I understand the interest people have in numbers. I bought a basketball almanac every year when I was a kid. No internet...so I had to read books, listen to my uncle and his people, and watch games. Record games. I remember when having a VCR was a somewhat new concept. I used to buy packs of 3 tapes to record on fridays when my mom might give me a couple dollars. A tape never lasted more than 1-2 games because our VCR was cheap and could only record at the speed that made an 8 hour tape record 2 hours.

So id record say...the Celtics/Bulls game and if it was good it went into the "Dont tape over" box and if it wasnt id watch it 1-2 times and tape over it. I watched some of those tapes so many times I can still remember where games that got taped over would be when the first game ended. that was the only way to know what was happening. Who was good and why. That and a blue background segment showcasing a few league leaders at halftime on CBS.

I didint know what anyones point per shot was. PER was 20 years away. Assist to turnover ratio was about as complicated as it got and even that I heard of like 3-4 times before the late 90s.

Ive seen a dozen times on ISH before someone well meaning and usually not an idiot say something along the lines of:

"Thats just your opinion. But *inset numbers* says ___".

Or to get out of the hypothetical...ill show the exact words of someone who will remain nameless:




The problem with this and similar lines of thinking....is that talking about basketball is arguing points that cant be proven.

I think the strive for proof is the source of most of problems with people online these days. Unless you want to be an ass and say something like "So I cant prove Jordan was better than Steve Kerr?"...its damn near impossible to prove anything.

All we can prove is who won and who lost. Which numbers a player has. and what awards he was given. Thats it. And every single one of them lie.

Difference between shooting 44 and 50 for a guy who shoots 18 times a game is one make or miss. In a game with perhaps 160 posessions there are people who let something like that decide who they think is a good player and who isnt. Or more likely who is an ok player and who is great. Since 50% is now a magical number that makes you great.

People act like they dont watch games and see what makes these numbers. Jason Kidd for one helped to slaughter his shooting percentages with halfcourt rainbows all the time in his prime. He just didnt give a damn. Same for Sam Cassell for a while. To me its a sign of a winner. I hate seeing guys dribble out the clock instead of shooting it. Never know right?

In a game with maybe 150-160 posessions one missed jumper often a bailout shot for a superstar isnt the difference between being good or bad. You have guys like Lebron, Kobe, and even lesser players like Ben Gordon, Jason Terry, and Jamal crawford taking bail out shots at the end of shot clocks/quarters that just flat out destroy their shooting percentages. It makes their numbers worse...but it does it because they have skills that let their teammates lean on them in such situations.

They are great shooters of often contested shots. have balls enough to take the shots. So their teams feed them the ball in otherwish bad situations. So they miss 1-2 shots a game that lesser skilled guys wouldnt be given....and it greatly impacts their shooting numbers. And its a direct result of a POSITIVE. Being good....gets you bad shots. As I said earlier one miss can take you from 50% to 44%. And a guy like AI? You watch one of his Philly games and hes taking almost EVERY bailout shot. A better indicator of quality shots being taken would probably be...shooting percentage with 3 or more seconds on the clock. But we have prople trying to fix that issue already...


We now have bullshit like true shooting and eFG% or PPS which reward threes and making FTs with no concern for the situation leading to those things. For the most part guys who take a lot of threes(even when they make them) do so for lack of the talents needed to get a better shot. So you can shoot. You take 3s. Have idiots talking about how many 3s you can miss and still produce as many point as you do making less 2s.

Am I the only one who sees the downside of taking a bad shot? you dont get 3 for the shot because its a good shot. You get it because its difficult. And people who take difficult shots dont tend to win when it matters because you cant count on making tough shots. You can however count on running good offense that gets good shots. Often you can take bad shots...and miss more shots...but if they are 3s you get a better rating? Lets not even go into the impact on transition D when you give up long rebounds off threes as opposed to missing a shot in the lane....


True shooting al ltime leaders does include some greats(Bird, Magic, Barkley and others) but any stat that in any way measure a positive(like making shots) will include some great. But really....

1. Cedric Maxwell .6294
6. Reggie Miller .6139
10. Brent Barry .6066
17. Ed Pinckney .6019
18. Steve Johnson .6002
19. Mario Elie .5982
Kevin Martin .5982

And this is perhaps most laughable to me:

25. Steve Kerr .5932
26. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar* .5924


Im gonna let that stand on its own...

Factoring in all forms of shooting numbers to make one number to decide something is just a ****ing stupid idea to begin with. For one...your field goal percentage itself is misleading for all number of reasons. your 3 point percentage can be impacted by so many things unrelated to your talent its a joke. And FT percentages? Relevant...but key to greatness?

How how many truly elitep layers shot 85% for their careers? Forget the bigmen like Wilt, Kareem, Russell, Shaq and so on. Few people do at any position. People who matter I mean. Not Jordan. Not Oscar. Not Magic. Not Kobe. Not west. 79 people have done it and 6 of them are or can be expected to eventually be in the HOF.

Being a great Ft shooter would be good for anyone. But fact is its often indicative of a less than complete game. A guy like Steve Kerr can do nothing but shoot because what else is he gonna be doing?

Getting away from scoring numbers...[/QUOTE]

this!!

stats ALWAYS are interpreted...but there is no substitute for the "intuition" that comes from nba experience (actually watching the players/game)

knowledge [B]+[/B]
experience (as defined above) [B]+ [/B]
solid interpretation
[B]=[/B]
strong point of view

[QUOTE=ZenMaster]Once again you try and turn this into an individual player analysis, that's a no no. When we talk about championships we talk about teams, not players on an individual basis.[/QUOTE]

I think that's been blaze's whole point. people are focusing way too much on individual stats. And looking at these boards, you can't deny that
[QUOTE]
And you point out any formula that puts Steve Kerr ahead of KAJ is flawed, which is wrong. What's flawed is your way of interpreting and understanding the stat in correlation with other important stats. [/QUOTE]
To a point you're right of course, but the more you have to interpret a stat, the less it means. If a stat puts Kerr ahead of KAJ and you say "but obviously that doesn't mean Kerr is a better player" then what does the stat mean? still, point taken.

Right now, something interesting is happening: Boston is well on it's way to the finals. You can find no stat at all that could've predicted this. But if you watched the games, you could see none of the players (except KG for a bit) were falling off, playing (significantly) worse than before. They were struggling as a team. TO's, playing inconsistent, not gelling. To me, this meant that if they could pull it together they would be instant contenders. You can't make that prediction from stats, but you can see it.

Also this makes for a much more interesting conversation. What's going on? There are an infinite number of possibilities and solutions to discuss and the outcomes will be more interesting and better predictions. With stats, the solutions are always finite and in this case they didn't show the problem at all, so you couldn't come up with a solution or a prediction.

I'd rather talk about Rondo's hustle than about the number of rebounds he has. I'd rather talk about the magic's bodylanguage than their turnovers. I'd rather talk about the great passes Ray made that were not assists but led to good things than just the passes that were counted as assists

:applause:

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]Isnt that pretty much saying that teams that make their shots while keeping the other team from making theirs tend to win? Might as well say playing basketball well makes you good at basketball.

For a team I can see how that would be a factor in winning because really all a team needs to do is outscore the opponent. For a single player compared to another there are way too many issues unrelated to the individuals.

Its almost like using simple games won and lost to judge players. You can judge a teams ability by it(for the most part). Not players.[/QUOTE]

No, there's a difference, here's an example.

The 07 Spurs where 2nd in TS% at 56.1% (Utah was 6th at 55.1%).

In FG% they where tied for 2nd with Utah at 47.4%.
The difference comes when you look at the 3pt shooting where SA shot 38.1% (3pt rate of 24.7%) and Utah was at 33.5% (3pt rate of 16.3%)
So San Antonio shot both more of their shots form 3pt, and made them at a better clip.

Utah had a FT rate of 38% while San Antonio was at 31.3%

They where tied with Utah in Off. efficiency at 106.7

So Utah and San Antonio was equal in points scored pr. 100 possessions, but Utah shot a lot more FTs, San Antonio made up the difference with their 3pt shooting where they shot both more and better, and with a slightly better FT% (75.1% vs 74.3%)



In Opp. FG% the Spurs where 4th where as in Opp. TS% they where 1st.

Orlando was 3rd in Opp. FG% but only 10th in Opp. TS% !!!!!!!

Orlandos Opp. shot 44.2 FG%
San Ant Opp. shot 44.3 FG%
So basically teams playing Orlando and SA shot the same % from the field, but when playing vs SA you got 4.3pts less per. 100 possessions

Opp. 3pt FG%: SA where 2nd at 33.4% and Orlando was 10th at 35.3%
Opp. 3pt rate: SA where 1st at 17% and Orlando was 13th at 21.6%

Opp. FT rate: SA where 2nd at 27.2% and Orlando was 29th at 37.6%

So the Opp. FT and 3pt rate makes the difference between the Opp. TS% and the Opp. FG%.



----------------------



Let's go a bit further and look at the opponents shot locations vs the #1 opp. TS% ranked SA defense.

Opp. Rim shot%: 56.2% (2nd) on 24.1 att prg (11th)

Opp. <10 Feet shot%: 41.7% (15th) on 11 att prg (29th)

Opp. 10-15 Feet shot%: 41.1% (24th) on 8.7 att prg (28th)

Opp. 16-23 Feet shot%: 40.6% (22th) on 20.4 att prg (11th)

Opp. 3pt shoot: 50.1 eFG% (2nd) on 13.4 att prg (2nd)

Those are some telling stats. You can see they did a good very good job of not letting opp. score at the rim while still not giving up that many att.

In the <10 FT area, which will most often be floaters and contested shots because you couldn't get to the rim, they where only an average defense in terms of opp. shot% and almost last in att. shots prg.

In the 10-15 FT area, which would be the ultimate mid-range area right? They where almost last in both opp. FG% and allowed shots.

In the 16-23 FT area they where near the bottom in opp. FG% and in the middle in terms of opp. att prg.

As for 3pointers they where 2nd in opp. shot % and 2nd in allowed att. prg.


So basically a defense with a lot of hard closeouts to not allow/contest the opponents 3pt shoots. Good help defense to not contest shots at the rim without giving up fouls (2nd in opp. FT rate)
That leads to a lot of dribble pull ups and floaters. You can see that they where almost last in terms of giving up shots and those shots being hit from the 10-15 FT area, yet they still had the #1 defense in terms of opp. TS% and 2nd points per 100 possessions.

Like I said in a previous post, this is the reason Popovich has been ahead of the curve for so long. It's not just that he's had good defensive players, but that his teams play the right type of defense in terms of minimizing the opponents efficiency, and that is getting the other team to shoot from the mid-range area as much as possible without fouling.

[QUOTE]I think that's been blaze's whole point. people are focusing way too much on individual stats. And looking at these boards, you can't deny that[/QUOTE]

No not at all, and I hate that there's so much focus on individuals in a team game.




[QUOTE=dutchguy]
To a point you're right of course, but the more you have to interpret a stat, the less it means. If a stat puts Kerr ahead of KAJ and you say "but obviously that doesn't mean Kerr is a better player" then what does the stat mean? still, point taken.

Right now, something interesting is happening: Boston is well on it's way to the finals. You can find no stat at all that could've predicted this. But if you watched the games, you could see none of the players (except KG for a bit) were falling off, playing (significantly) worse than before. They were struggling as a team. TO's, playing inconsistent, not gelling. To me, this meant that if they could pull it together they would be instant contenders. You can't make that prediction from stats, but you can see it.

Also this makes for a much more interesting conversation. What's going on? There are an infinite number of possibilities and solutions to discuss and the outcomes will be more interesting and better predictions. With stats, the solutions are always finite and in this case they didn't show the problem at all, so you couldn't come up with a solution or a prediction.

I'd rather talk about Rondo's hustle than about the number of rebounds he has. I'd rather talk about the magic's bodylanguage than their turnovers. I'd rather talk about the great passes Ray made that were not assists but led to good things than just the passes that were counted as assists[/QUOTE]

Lots of good points that I agree with.

But as for the TS% being a flawed stat, it just doesn't make any sense. All you have to do to interpret it is look at shoots per game, basically the same with FG%.

You could also just look at PPS, but he said that stat was bad as well.

You just can't tell me that a stat that combines the 3 ways possible of scoring in a basketball game is a bad stat. He used the reasoning that guys who shoot a lot of 3's do it because they're not good at something else and therefore it's not a valid ability in terms of being a basketball player, and that's a bunch of BS, as long as there's a 3pt line it's a valid ability to be able to shoot from that distance.
Same thing with FT's, as long as they count for a point pr. make it's a valid ability to create and make FT's for yourself and your team.

stats are helpful [U][B]after[/B][/U] the fact. they help interpret why and team won/lost. but they are always a partial picture and needs interpretation with other factors

intangibles play a huge part in winning/losing. pure stats do not cover well the psychological parts of any game. here are a few areas:

-timing of missed/made shots
-hustle plays
-fights
-being benched
-choking
-the affect of the crowd
-lucky plays/shots
-coach's involvement/lack thereof
-injuries
-chemistry of the team
when a team "gives up"

[QUOTE=ZenMaster]No not at all, and I hate that there's so much focus on individuals in a team game.[/QUOTE]
?? so you agree? :)

[QUOTE]
But as for the TS% being a flawed stat, it just doesn't make any sense. All you have to do to interpret it is look at shoots per game, basically the same with FG%.

You could also just look at PPS, but he said that stat was bad as well.

You just can't tell me that a stat that combines the 3 ways possible of scoring in a basketball game is a bad stat. He used the reasoning that guys who shoot a lot of 3's do it because they're not good at something else and therefore it's not a valid ability in terms of being a basketball player, and that's a bunch of BS, as long as there's a 3pt line it's a valid ability to be able to shoot from that distance.
Same thing with FT's, as long as they count for a point pr. make it's a valid ability to create and make FT's for yourself and your team.[/QUOTE]

Agree that the argument that shooting 3s is some sign of weakness is nonsense, just as ft's. Still, Blaze made a rant, a provoking opinion, in which he didn't say stats are all useless, but that stats are vastly overrated. And that's the same with TS% even when combined with the volume of shots taken. The picture you get from that is very minimal.
I see your side of the story, but it doesn't take away his.

[QUOTE=dutchguy]?? so you agree? :)



Agree that the argument that shooting 3s is some sign of weakness is nonsense, just as ft's. Still, Blaze made a rant, a provoking opinion, in which he didn't say stats are all useless, but that stats are vastly overrated. And that's the same with TS% even when combined with the volume of shots taken. The picture you get from that is very minimal.
I see your side of the story, but it doesn't take away his.[/QUOTE]

Yeah i highly agree with the individualistic approach in a team sport is getting obnoxious.

I don't agree that the TS% is vastly overrated. The factors that go into having a good TS% on offense and forcing a bad TS% on defense are so big for winning in basketball.

A good TS% is evident of a team shooting a lot of lay ups (breaking down the defense), hitting 3's at a good rate (stretches the defense and is often a sign of many and good ball reversals which is in direct correlation with defensive breakdowns), and shooting FT's which puts pressure on the other team in terms of foul trouble which ultimately leads to more bad defensive decisions and more defensive breakdowns.

[QUOTE=ZenMaster]Yeah i highly agree with the individualistic approach in a team sport is getting obnoxious.

I don't agree that the TS% is vastly overrated. The factors that go into having a good TS% on offense and forcing a bad TS% on defense are so big for winning in basketball.

A good TS% is evident of a team shooting a lot of lay ups (breaking down the defense), hitting 3's at a good rate (stretches the defense and is often a sign of many and good ball reversals which is in direct correlation with defensive breakdowns), and shooting FT's which puts pressure on the other team in terms of foul trouble which ultimately leads to more bad defensive decisions and more defensive breakdowns.[/QUOTE]
Would you say that if I show you two teams and their TS% from a game against each other, that the team with the higher TS% is always the winner (except for some exception that proves the rule)?
Because I wouldn't be surprised if that was only the case 60% or something.

ok finally sat down and read the op

kblaze, you rock!

[QUOTE=dutchguy]Would you say that if I show you two teams and their TS% from a game against each other, that the team with the higher TS% is always the winner (except for some exception that proves the rule)?
Because I wouldn't be surprised if that was only the case 60% or something.[/QUOTE]

I'd say that the vast majority of the time the team will have the higher TS%, I think it's higher than 60%, way higher but I'll look into it a little bit.

I my former post I was very close to writing that if I could only have one stat to look at from a game or season to determine the winner(not being points scored obv :) ) I would pick offensive TS% vs defensive TS%.

[QUOTE=gts]ok finally sat down and read the op

kblaze, you rock![/QUOTE]


[B]QFT[/B]

If only ISHers had better reasoning skills like The Blaze..

I agree about the rabid over use of stats on this site. I understand people need some sort of arbitrary measuring stick in an argument but it isn't the end all be all of a players ability. It only irks me because people don't even comment about the actual game and the observations they make while watching and if they do its an overreaction and not a genuine look at the players body of work. Everyone thought deron Williams was the best PG after the first round and now its rondo. And most people based these beliefs on stats during a 5 or 6 game stretch.

[QUOTE=dutchguy]Would you say that if I show you two teams and their TS% from a game against each other, that the team with the higher TS% is always the winner (except for some exception that proves the rule)?
Because I wouldn't be surprised if that was only the case 60% or something.[/QUOTE]

OK so I did a probable finals match up of the Celtic and the Lakers for their games so far in these playoffs.

In games the Lakers have played this post season the team with the highest TS% have won 10 out of 12 times. In the 2 games where the team with the lowest TS% won the games where won by 3 points and 1 point.

In games the Celtics have played this post season the team with the highest TS% have won 12 out of 14 times. In the 2 games where the team with the lowest TS% won the games where decided by 2 and 9 points.

What's with the backlash against stats? They are a great tool to help you determine which players and teams are better. If you look at a combination of most advanced metrics, they give you a good idea of who is playing well and who isn't whether it's on offense or defense. People who don't know how to interpret the stats or use them wrong ("this guy has a higher FG% so he is a better shooter.") are the problem. Sure there are many intangible aspects to all sports but the main stuff comes down to are you a productive player on both ends or not? That can be captured using many statistics. Someone in this thread mentioned intangible aspects like "effect of the crowd". Really? I mean come on, do you realize how small of an effect this has on the production of players? This can also be shown by looking at home/away splits among other things.

Unless someone watches every single game of every single team/player, you should be using stats in your argument because it gives you a bigger sample for a basis of comparison. No, the 10 games you watched of Chris Paul and Deron Williams this year to compare them is not enough. Baseless arguments is what pisses me off about ISH. People spouting off claims without any sort of proof to support them.

Deeper statistical analysis is a good thing. Why not try to become smarter about the game? Why not try to look for things that will be better predictors of future performance? People are finally coming around on this when it comes to baseball and it's becoming a valuable tool. Basketball is a different sport obviously but learning more about the game is not a bad thing.

[QUOTE=ZenMaster]OK so I did a probable finals match up of the Celtic and the Lakers for their games so far in these playoffs.

In games the Lakers have played this post season the team with the highest TS% have won 10 out of 12 times. In the 2 games where the team with the lowest TS% won the games where won by 3 points and 1 point.

In games the Celtics have played this post season the team with the highest TS% have won 12 out of 14 times. In the 2 games where the team with the lowest TS% won the games where decided by 2 and 9 points.[/QUOTE]
:bowdown:
Ok I gotta hand it to you, you do good research. So definitely more than 60% and this will probably translate to a larger sample, or even league wide. Now for the next challenge:oldlol:
If this stat really means anything, it must be able to predict something. I could also use a stat to tell you which team won a certain game: The final score.
The point of using these stats is that they give insight in A: the way/style a team plays (which i think it doesn't much unless you compare off and def TS% for both teams) B: how this team will perform in the future. I'm interested if that can be done, I don't think so, because TS% depends too much on the opponent. If it doesn't predict, than it's just as easy to just look at the score.

[QUOTE=dutchguy]:bowdown:
Ok I gotta hand it to you, you do good research. So definitely more than 60% and this will probably translate to a larger sample, or even league wide. Now for the next challenge:oldlol:
If this stat really means anything, it must be able to predict something. I could also use a stat to tell you which team won a certain game: The final score.
The point of using these stats is that they give insight in A: the way/style a team plays (which i think it doesn't much unless you compare off and def TS% for both teams) B: how this team will perform in the future. I'm interested if that can be done, I don't think so, because TS% depends too much on the opponent. If it doesn't predict, than it's just as easy to just look at the score.[/QUOTE]


I think it definitely covers very well how the best teams defend. TS% is a direct indicator of covering the 3pt line and the paint without giving up a big amount of FT's.

As for the offensive side I couldn't help but think of the Houston Rockets. Daryl Morey is a firm believer in this stuff and the Rockets have a tendency to overachieve compared to the talent of their roster.

2009 is a great example of this. While the Lakers had the way better point differential for the season they where taken to 7 games in their series with the Rockets, the only team to do so vs the Lakers, there's a reason for this:

Even though the Lakers where the team with the highest point differential in the WC for the season at +7.7 they where not the team with the biggest differential in TS%, the Rockets where. Lakers had a TS% diff. of 2.5 vs Rockets 3.2

This is in direct effect with how they play and what kind of shots Adelman has designed the offense to get. You can see that off these charts, which has Rockets players peak in rim shots and 3pts attempted, the same shots that highly affect TS% outside of FT shooting. I'm pretty sure you'd see somewhat equal charts for teams like Cleveland, Boston and Orlando. The Rockets though go all the way.

[IMG]http://www.red94.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/rockets_shooting.png[/IMG]

[IMG]http://www.red94.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/rockets_pg_shooting.png[/IMG]

[IMG]http://www.red94.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/rockets_swing_shooting.png[/IMG]

[IMG]http://www.red94.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/rockets_bigs_shooting.png[/IMG]



In the EC last year the Cavs where the team with the highest point differential for the season, but not the highest TS% diff, that was Orlando.
Cleveland had a pt diff of +8.9 and a TS% diff of +4.5
Orlando had a pt diff of +7.5 but a TS% diff of +5.1

Orlando ended up beating Cleveland when it mattered.

I used the comparison to point differential because there's a strong belief amongst media NBA "experts" that point differential is the strongest indicator of how teams will perform in the playoffs.

A couple of other notes concerning last season:

1) Boston was only 0.1 behind Orlando for the best TS% diff and they had a .8 larger point diff. I wouldn't put it past them that they would have been in the finals if it wasn't for the KG injury.

2) The Lakers is kind of the team that stands out in these stats compared to their success, but I think it can be explained.
First of all their offense isn't designed to maximize 3pt and rim shots opportunities. I have heard Phil comment that he sometimes regret not getting his teams more 3pt shots, but that he has stuck with the triangle offense because it's an equal opportunity offense and that's important as it fits his basketball philosophy of having everybody involved.

But he understands the importance of the 3pt shot and that you have to defend against it, especially these last few years. This is shown during his teams playoffs runs when they win:

[U]Opp. 3pt FG% in the playoffs for the Lakers:[/U]
2010: 5th 32% going to win
2009: 2nd 31% won
2008: 8th 35% lost finals
2007: 10th 35% 1st rnd exit
2006: 14th 40% 1st rnd exit
2004: 6th 31% lost finals
2003: 14th 40% 2nd rnd exit
2002: 6th 31% won
2001: 3rd 27% won
2000: 10th 37% won

OK, I'm convinced. :cheers:
Just can't beat that. I won't abandon looking at stats any time soon.

1 thing though
[QUOTE=ZenMaster]
[U]Opp. 3pt FG% in the playoffs for the Lakers:[/U]
2010: 5th 32% going to win
2009: 2nd 31% won
2008: 8th 35% lost finals
[B]2007: 10th 35% 1st rnd exit[/B]
2006: 14th 40% 1st rnd exit
2004: 6th 31% lost finals
2003: 14th 40% 2nd rnd exit
2002: 6th 31% won
2001: 3rd 27% won
[B]2000: 10th 37% won[/B]
[/QUOTE]
It doesn't really add up, the correlation between 3pt% and playoffs outcome is way too weak, which I think is obvious, but goes to show that this isn't the end-all be-all stat, but you said that yourself. However a smart combination of stats like you proposed offensive and defensive TS% interpreted the right way can lead to interesting conclusions.

and ehh....
[QUOTE=ZenMaster]
[U]Opp. 3pt FG% in the playoffs for the Lakers:[/U]
[B]2010: 5th 32% going to win[/B]:no:
[/QUOTE]
Hell no....celtics baby
:pimp:

[QUOTE=dutchguy]OK, I'm convinced. :cheers:
Just can't beat that. I won't abandon looking at stats any time soon.

1 thing though

It doesn't really add up, the correlation between 3pt% and playoffs outcome is way too weak, which I think is obvious, but goes to show that this isn't the end-all be-all stat, but you said that yourself. However a smart combination of stats like you proposed offensive and defensive TS% interpreted the right way can lead to interesting conclusions.

and ehh....

Hell no....celtics baby
:pimp:[/QUOTE]

But what you have to remember is that this whole statistical revelation in the NBA is no more than a few years old and it's very much still going on. So all this focus on covering the 3pt line is a fairly new concept to a lot of teams. Like I said in an earlier post, Popovich was the guy to go with this concept first and thus his success during this last decade.

It's going to be one hell of a finals series this year :cheers:

[QUOTE=ZenMaster]But what you have to remember is that this whole statistical revelation in the NBA is no more than a few years old and it's very much still going on. So all this focus on covering the 3pt line is a fairly new concept to a lot of teams. Like I said in an earlier post, Popovich was the guy to go with this concept first and thus his success during this last decade.
[/QUOTE]
I can quite distinctly remember my coach teaching us the same thing when I was about 15. So I don't think it's really new. And believe me, in my league there were no NBA/NCAA caliber shooters:oldlol:
But the more advanced statistics have come over from Baseball only a few years ago, agreed. One of these 'advanced' statistics I hate is PER. That might work in baseball which is much more static and it's also understandable that you want to try to get as much info as possible in one clearly comparable number, but it's not working in a dynamic game as bball.

Makes me think of Ginobli, who in my opinion does so much on the floor, but it's impossible to translate that in objective stats. He always makes passes that get the advance the offence, but that are not direct assists. Can't translate that. Just like floor spacing.
And than you have people like this guy from the Mavs, who has this Mathletics site and he's saying stuff like "Durant's +/- is so low we wouldn't sign him if we could" You can't make coaching or acquisition decisions based on those stats.
But we've discussed that and I believe you agree.

[QUOTE]
It's going to be one hell of a finals series this year :cheers:[/QUOTE]
Epic

[QUOTE]Players lost their midrange jumpers and fans lost the ability to talk basketball because of the agendas driven by the need to be right all the time...and to prove it. The strive for proof is where these numbers come from. And its in these numbers we lose our all around fanhood.[/QUOTE]
Very true. I always try to stay away from conversations I know I'm biased on, and it really starts to become idiotic when a person pulls out the same argument which sort of makes sense, but everyone disagrees except for the biased few who pull out the exact same argument.

I also agree that the three pointer is over rated. Its an especially terrible shot in the last few minutes of the game because, while it might be more efficient statistically you're only going to make it 1/3 times and you might only have 3 possessions left while you'd be making an inside shot half the time even if its less efficient.
However just shooting a spot up three mid game instead of a jump shot is better because it is more efficient, it creates better spacing and its a momentum shifting shot if you keep making them.

[QUOTE=Qwyjibo]What's with the backlash against stats? They are a great tool to help you determine which players and teams are better. If you look at a combination of most advanced metrics, they give you a good idea of who is playing well and who isn't whether it's on offense or defense. People who don't know how to interpret the stats or use them wrong ("this guy has a higher FG% so he is a better shooter.") are the problem. Sure there are many intangible aspects to all sports but the main stuff comes down to are you a productive player on both ends or not? That can be captured using many statistics. Someone in this thread mentioned intangible aspects like "effect of the crowd". Really? I mean come on, do you realize how small of an effect this has on the production of players? This can also be shown by looking at home/away splits among other things.

Unless someone watches every single game of every single team/player, you should be using stats in your argument because it gives you a bigger sample for a basis of comparison. No, the 10 games you watched of Chris Paul and Deron Williams this year to compare them is not enough. Baseless arguments is what pisses me off about ISH. People spouting off claims without any sort of proof to support them.

Deeper statistical analysis is a good thing. Why not try to become smarter about the game? Why not try to look for things that will be better predictors of future performance? People are finally coming around on this when it comes to baseball and it's becoming a valuable tool. Basketball is a different sport obviously but learning more about the game is not a bad thing.[/QUOTE]

Good post.

The problem on this board is that no one really uses stats properly in the context of an argument. They will say player X has more assists than player Y because they average more assists. A lot of guys who do this provide absolutely no real interpretation or observations on the players or teams or coaches they are debating about. Its gotta make you question whether or not they even watch these players.

That is the reason I like reading posts by guys like Thorpe, KBlaze, Da KO King, wang4three, and a bunch of other guys because they provide their opinions of playing style and observations they have made while actually watching games.

I do agree that statistics are a valuable tool tho. For instance, I probably only get to watch like 5 or 6 Kings games a year so I won't have very much first hand knowledge about Tyreke Evans. However, by looking at stats and doing comparisons I can come up with a reasonable estimate of where he should be placed among NBA players. I still refrane from speaking about guys like this who I don't watch very often because I don't have much to offer except stats that everyone has access to. What I really enjoy in a post is something unique within the anaylsis and not just a statistical breakdown I can get from NBA.com.