|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Mike@LG
Moderator
Joined: 10 Apr 2001
Posts: 65135
Location: Orange County, CA
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2018 4:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Players that shoot 1-2 times per game - those players can't shoot. If you're shooting 1-2 threes per game, you're passing up hard shots and a bunch of easy shots as well.
|
Disagree. It's more like, the players best strength is passing. In this case, Lonzo. So he thinks the NEXT shot is the best shot, not the spot up 3.
_________________
Resident Car Nut.
https://lakersdraft.substack.com/
I am not an economic advisor nor do I advise economic strategies or plans. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16162
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2018 4:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mike@LG wrote: | | Quote: | Players that shoot 1-2 times per game - those players can't shoot. If you're shooting 1-2 threes per game, you're passing up hard shots and a bunch of easy shots as well.
|
Disagree. It's more like, the players best strength is passing. In this case, Lonzo. So he thinks the NEXT shot is the best shot, not the spot up 3. |
well, Lonzo shoots around 4-5 per game? I'm talking (perimeter) players that avg 1-2 per game and play 30 minutes.
Those players can't shoot threes and are unwilling. They aren't just passing up hard ones, they are passing up easy ones as well.
You'd be hard pressed to find a good shooter that limits himself to 1-2 threes per game.
And remember the premise that's being debated: limiting your threes to 1-2 per game increases your % because you're passing up the hard shots and taking the easy threes.
--------------------------------------------------------
But what exactly is it that you're disagreeing with Mike? On the one hand, you're saying Lonzo shooting 31.8% at 7 attempts a game is perfect, because it opens up lanes for LeBron
Then when I say players that shoot 1-2 threes a game choose to do so because they can't shoot, you say you disagree because players like Lonzo rather not shoot the three and pass
I'm not even sure what it is you're disagreeing with
Last edited by LongBeachPoly on Wed Dec 12, 2018 4:54 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BigGameHames
Star Player
Joined: 24 May 2015
Posts: 7982
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2018 4:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LongBeachPoly wrote: | | BigGameHames wrote: | | LongBeachPoly wrote: | | BigGameHames wrote: | | LongBeachPoly wrote: | | BigGameHames wrote: | | More shots also correlates to more of a willingness to take tougher ones which will hurt the %. |
Yeah, I'm going to disagree on this. I think as you get better at shooting 3s, you take more shots.
Blake Griffin, when he first came into the league - shot 29.2% on 0.3 attempts.
Now, he's shooting 36.2% on 6.3 attempts. |
Shooting less 3s is easier to shoot a higher percentage and players shoot more when they shoot better. It’s not a one or the other situation. |
Do you shoot? What's your experience? I feel I'm a shooter and if I only shoot one 3 per game, I feel my % would suffer.
I feel I need around 5-6 per game to get a feel. Once I get that feel, I want to shoot more and more.
1 per game - there's no rhythm at all. I think that's why Svi struggles. Not enough attempts.
So for a shooter, I'm going to have to disagree with you that less is better for the %.
Whatever Curry is shooting right now (50%), I don't know if you can say he'll shoot a better % if he only took 1 per game. |
Yea I could shoot and was often tasked with having to make tough ones if my team was struggling. It hurt my %. Of course you wanna get a rythym but if you pass up semi contested 3s and only take open ones, you’re gonna shoot a better %. I can’t imagine you’d argue that, and that’s my point. Take less shots, you’re gonna cut out the tougher ones first. More easy shots, higher %. It’s why I think Lonzos finishing is a much bigger issue than shooting despite what the %s say. He only takes easy ones in those situations. |
I've never played a game where I only had 1 easy look the entire game. You?
I've never seen any good shooter limit themselves to 1-2 looks a game. Never seen it.
Players that shoot 1-2 times per game - those players can't shoot. If you're shooting 1-2 threes per game, you're passing up hard shots and a bunch of easy shots as well.
If you're playing 30 min + a game, you're getting more than enough good looks per game.
This theory that Ingram is passing up all the hard looks and just taking easy looks by shooting 1-2 threes a game, I don't buy it. If he was a good shooter, he'd be shooting more.
He's passing up alot of good looks as well as hard looks. He's just not pulling the trigger, period because of lack of confidence.
---------------------
And re: your shooting, how many 3pt fga did you shoot per game?
When I didn't have a 3pt shot, you know how many I shot a game? Zero. Then I developed a 3pt shot and I started to shoot a bunch. Now, I need to shoot a certain amount to find my rhythm. And once I found my rhythm for that game, every shot became "easy" ones.
So I can't really relate to shooting 1 per game. |
You want a autobiography of my playing career?
Yes I had games where I didn’t get many easy looks. My last competitive game was almost ten years ago so I don’t have those exact figures for you.
I don’t know good shooters who limit themselves to 1-2 a game either and i don’t see how that is in any way relevant to the discussion at hand. I also don’t see the relevance of your shot selection as a player or your development as a shooter. I’m happy you improved but if you were ever the focal point of a defense, you could relate to not getting easy looks.
Yes if Ingram was a good shooter he’d shoot more. Again, relevance? I’m saying he only takes easy ones and passes up hard ones he isn’t comfortable taking and that is why he shot an inflated % last year. That’s just a fact. Him also passing up good looks further proves my point, not yours. I agree confidence issues also have something to do with it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike@LG
Moderator
Joined: 10 Apr 2001
Posts: 65135
Location: Orange County, CA
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2018 4:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LongBeachPoly wrote: | | Mike@LG wrote: | | Quote: | Players that shoot 1-2 times per game - those players can't shoot. If you're shooting 1-2 threes per game, you're passing up hard shots and a bunch of easy shots as well.
|
Disagree. It's more like, the players best strength is passing. In this case, Lonzo. So he thinks the NEXT shot is the best shot, not the spot up 3. |
well, Lonzo shoots around 4-5 per game? I'm talking (perimeter) players that avg 1-2 per game and play 30 minutes.
Those players can't shoot threes and are unwilling. They aren't just passing up hard ones, they are passing up easy ones as well.
You'd be hard pressed to find a good shooter that limits himself to 1-2 threes per game.
And remember the premise that's being debated: limiting your threes to 1-2 per game increases your % because you're passing up the hard shots and taking the easy threes. |
https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/balllo01/gamelog/2019
A lot of 2-3 attempts per game. A lot of 6s. There's a large variance there.
I don't think it's about "limiting" the attempts. I DO think it's about taking good looks within the context of one's skill. There's a BIG difference there. You can take 8-10 3s and they can ALL be good shots, or just 3, and they're all bad.
_________________
Resident Car Nut.
https://lakersdraft.substack.com/
I am not an economic advisor nor do I advise economic strategies or plans. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BigGameHames
Star Player
Joined: 24 May 2015
Posts: 7982
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2018 4:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LongBeachPoly wrote: | | Mike@LG wrote: | | Quote: | Players that shoot 1-2 times per game - those players can't shoot. If you're shooting 1-2 threes per game, you're passing up hard shots and a bunch of easy shots as well.
|
Disagree. It's more like, the players best strength is passing. In this case, Lonzo. So he thinks the NEXT shot is the best shot, not the spot up 3. |
well, Lonzo shoots around 4-5 per game? I'm talking (perimeter) players that avg 1-2 per game and play 30 minutes.
Those players can't shoot threes and are unwilling. They aren't just passing up hard ones, they are passing up easy ones as well.
You'd be hard pressed to find a good shooter that limits himself to 1-2 threes per game.
And remember the premise that's being debated: limiting your threes to 1-2 per game increases your % because you're passing up the hard shots and taking the easy threes. |
No you invented the 1-2 attempt number. The discussion is simply regarding the idea that less attempts makes it easier to shoot a higher percentage because you can pass up more difficult ones. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16162
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2018 5:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BigGameHames wrote: | You want a autobiography of my playing career?
Yes I had games where I didn’t get many easy looks. My last competitive game was almost ten years ago so I don’t have those exact figures for you.
I don’t know good shooters who limit themselves to 1-2 a game either and i don’t see how that is in any way relevant to the discussion at hand. I also don’t see the relevance of your shot selection as a player or your development as a shooter. I’m happy you improved but if you were ever the focal point of a defense, you could relate to not getting easy looks.
Yes if Ingram was a good shooter he’d shoot more. Again, relevance? I’m saying he only takes easy ones and passes up hard ones he isn’t comfortable taking and that is why he shot an inflated % last year. That’s just a fact. Him also passing up good looks further proves my point, not yours. I agree confidence issues also have something to do with it. |
Here's the relevance, he's shooting even less this year and a lower %.
1.8 attempts last yr - 39%
1.7 attempts this yr - 32.4%
Your theory is - if you shoot less, your % will go up. If you shoot more, your % will go down. I'm disagreeing with that theory.
I'm saying shooters need to shoot more to get into a rhythm. It's hard to shoot a good % consistently if you're only shooting 1-2 threes per game. You might have a good % one year but then you might have a bad % the next year.
A good shooter needs to get his touches per game to get into a rhythm. It's going to be more than 1-2 per game.
If you take any good shooter, like Curry, and you tell him to shoot only 1-2 threes per game, I don't think his % will increase. Even if your theory is that he'll just eliminate all the hard shots and only take the easy ones, I don't think that will help his %. He needs a certain number of shots per game to get into a rhythm.
So I'm disagreeing with that theory.
And I'm asking for your experience because I'm seeing where this theory is coming from. What is the root of your theory. Is it based on experience? And I shared my experience because I'm saying I can't relate to what you're describing - how a shooter's % go up if he only shot 1-2 attempts per game. I think that would work in reverse for a good shooter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16162
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2018 5:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BigGameHames wrote: | | No you invented the 1-2 attempt number. The discussion is simply regarding the idea that less attempts makes it easier to shoot a higher percentage because you can pass up more difficult ones. |
Did I? The discussion started being about Rubio vs. Lonzo and how even though their % were both bad, Lonzo was a significantly better shooter because Rubio only attempts 1.6 per game. Then you brought up Ingram and how he only shot 2 per game.
Here it is:
| BigGameHames wrote: | | LongBeachPoly wrote: | | BigGameHames wrote: | | LongBeachPoly wrote: | | BigGameHames wrote: | | The God Particle wrote: | | BigGameHames wrote: | | Rubio is a valuable and underrated player but if you don’t see why many feel Lonzo projects to be much better I think you’re ignoring the facts. Lonzo is a much better shooter than 2nd year Rubio. He’s shooting 32% from 3 on 4 per game while Rubio shot 29% on 1.6 per game. Lonzo also has a higher FG% and considerably higher efg% than second year Rubio. They are comparable players right now, in a few years Lonzo will more than likely far surpass him. Who’s a better defender is very debatable though, I agree with that part. I prefer Zo because of his ability to pick up full court and guard multiple positions but Rubio is one of the few guys in the NBA with as quick of hands as him and manages to get more steals while gambling less. I’m a Rubio fan which is part of the reason I’m such a big Lonzo fan. A second year player who’s already on par with him as a player and has far more physical gifts projects to be much better and a damn good NBA player. Rubio is his floor. |
I think the differences (very very slight) that you're quoting for 2nd year Lonzo and Rubio are due much more to today's pace of play and analytics driven league.
Lonzo better have a much better eFG% today. |
The 3 point shooting is not a slight difference let alone a very slight difference. 2.5% better on over twice as many attempts infers he’s a considerably better shooter. |
Yeah, all depends how you look at it.
Rubio 1st year - 34.0%
Rubio 2nd year - 29.3%
Lonzo 1st year - 30.5%
Lonzo 2nd year - 31.8%
It all depends on how you look at it to come up with "Lonzo's a considerably better shooter" |
Attempts matter quite a bit IMO. |
Which is interesting. Do you want someone shooting a low % to shoot more? Would Lonzo be an even better shooter if he was attempting 10 3pt fga? |
No I’m not talking about what kind of shots I want a player to take. I’m acknowledging that when a player takes less shots they almost always are taking less of the more difficult ones. More shots also correlates to more of a willingness to take tougher ones which will hurt the %.
We saw that with Ingram last year when he shot 39% because he only took about 2 a game. He only took easy ones and so his % indicated a far better shooter than he actually is.
I think Lonzo takes a pretty good amount. Enough to keep the D honest. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16162
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2018 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mike@LG wrote: | | LongBeachPoly wrote: | | Mike@LG wrote: | | Quote: | Players that shoot 1-2 times per game - those players can't shoot. If you're shooting 1-2 threes per game, you're passing up hard shots and a bunch of easy shots as well.
|
Disagree. It's more like, the players best strength is passing. In this case, Lonzo. So he thinks the NEXT shot is the best shot, not the spot up 3. |
well, Lonzo shoots around 4-5 per game? I'm talking (perimeter) players that avg 1-2 per game and play 30 minutes.
Those players can't shoot threes and are unwilling. They aren't just passing up hard ones, they are passing up easy ones as well.
You'd be hard pressed to find a good shooter that limits himself to 1-2 threes per game.
And remember the premise that's being debated: limiting your threes to 1-2 per game increases your % because you're passing up the hard shots and taking the easy threes. |
https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/balllo01/gamelog/2019
A lot of 2-3 attempts per game. A lot of 6s. There's a large variance there.
I don't think it's about "limiting" the attempts. I DO think it's about taking good looks within the context of one's skill. There's a BIG difference there. You can take 8-10 3s and they can ALL be good shots, or just 3, and they're all bad. |
But that's the point BigGameHames is trying to make. He's saying, % goes up when you limit your attempts.
And I'm saying the same thing you're saying - take the good looks within the context of one's skill. And if you can shoot threes, you're going to get good looks all game. They'll be there and you'll get more than 1-2 per game.
So anyone playing 30 minutes a game and only taking 1-2 threes a game, are passing up good looks on purpose. They're not just passing up the hard looks.
Even Svi avg 2 attempts per game in 10 minutes and I don't think he takes any hard looks at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BigGameHames
Star Player
Joined: 24 May 2015
Posts: 7982
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2018 5:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LongBeachPoly wrote: | | BigGameHames wrote: | You want a autobiography of my playing career?
Yes I had games where I didn’t get many easy looks. My last competitive game was almost ten years ago so I don’t have those exact figures for you.
I don’t know good shooters who limit themselves to 1-2 a game either and i don’t see how that is in any way relevant to the discussion at hand. I also don’t see the relevance of your shot selection as a player or your development as a shooter. I’m happy you improved but if you were ever the focal point of a defense, you could relate to not getting easy looks.
Yes if Ingram was a good shooter he’d shoot more. Again, relevance? I’m saying he only takes easy ones and passes up hard ones he isn’t comfortable taking and that is why he shot an inflated % last year. That’s just a fact. Him also passing up good looks further proves my point, not yours. I agree confidence issues also have something to do with it. |
Here's the relevance, he's shooting even less this year and a lower %.
1.8 attempts last yr - 39%
1.7 attempts this yr - 32.4%
Your theory is - if you shoot less, your % will go up. If you shoot more, your % will go down. I'm disagreeing with that theory.
I'm saying shooters need to shoot more to get into a rhythm. It's hard to shoot a good % consistently if you're only shooting 1-2 threes per game. You might have a good % one year but then you might have a bad % the next year.
A good shooter needs to get his touches per game to get into a rhythm. It's going to be more than 1-2 per game.
If you take any good shooter, like Curry, and you tell him to shoot only 1-2 threes per game, I don't think his % will increase. Even if your theory is that he'll just eliminate all the hard shots and only take the easy ones, I don't think that will help his %. He needs a certain number of shots per game to get into a rhythm.
So I'm disagreeing with that theory.
And I'm asking for your experience because I'm seeing where this theory is coming from. What is the root of your theory. Is it based on experience? And I shared my experience because I'm saying I can't relate to what you're describing - how a shooter's % go up if he only shot 1-2 attempts per game. I think that would work in reverse for a good shooter. |
No my theory is that if you take more shots you usually have to take tougher ones which will lead to worse %. It’s a general rule. Has nothing to do with a specific amount. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BigGameHames
Star Player
Joined: 24 May 2015
Posts: 7982
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2018 5:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LongBeachPoly wrote: | | BigGameHames wrote: | | No you invented the 1-2 attempt number. The discussion is simply regarding the idea that less attempts makes it easier to shoot a higher percentage because you can pass up more difficult ones. |
Did I? The discussion started being about Rubio vs. Lonzo and how even though their % were both bad, Lonzo was a significantly better shooter because Rubio only attempts 1.6 per game. Then you brought up Ingram and how he only shot 2 per game.
Here it is:
| BigGameHames wrote: | | LongBeachPoly wrote: | | BigGameHames wrote: | | LongBeachPoly wrote: | | BigGameHames wrote: | | The God Particle wrote: | | BigGameHames wrote: | | Rubio is a valuable and underrated player but if you don’t see why many feel Lonzo projects to be much better I think you’re ignoring the facts. Lonzo is a much better shooter than 2nd year Rubio. He’s shooting 32% from 3 on 4 per game while Rubio shot 29% on 1.6 per game. Lonzo also has a higher FG% and considerably higher efg% than second year Rubio. They are comparable players right now, in a few years Lonzo will more than likely far surpass him. Who’s a better defender is very debatable though, I agree with that part. I prefer Zo because of his ability to pick up full court and guard multiple positions but Rubio is one of the few guys in the NBA with as quick of hands as him and manages to get more steals while gambling less. I’m a Rubio fan which is part of the reason I’m such a big Lonzo fan. A second year player who’s already on par with him as a player and has far more physical gifts projects to be much better and a damn good NBA player. Rubio is his floor. |
I think the differences (very very slight) that you're quoting for 2nd year Lonzo and Rubio are due much more to today's pace of play and analytics driven league.
Lonzo better have a much better eFG% today. |
The 3 point shooting is not a slight difference let alone a very slight difference. 2.5% better on over twice as many attempts infers he’s a considerably better shooter. |
Yeah, all depends how you look at it.
Rubio 1st year - 34.0%
Rubio 2nd year - 29.3%
Lonzo 1st year - 30.5%
Lonzo 2nd year - 31.8%
It all depends on how you look at it to come up with "Lonzo's a considerably better shooter" |
Attempts matter quite a bit IMO. |
Which is interesting. Do you want someone shooting a low % to shoot more? Would Lonzo be an even better shooter if he was attempting 10 3pt fga? |
No I’m not talking about what kind of shots I want a player to take. I’m acknowledging that when a player takes less shots they almost always are taking less of the more difficult ones. More shots also correlates to more of a willingness to take tougher ones which will hurt the %.
We saw that with Ingram last year when he shot 39% because he only took about 2 a game. He only took easy ones and so his % indicated a far better shooter than he actually is.
I think Lonzo takes a pretty good amount. Enough to keep the D honest. |
|
The example I used had that many attempts. At no point did I say the specific amount was a determining factor. You assumed that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BigGameHames
Star Player
Joined: 24 May 2015
Posts: 7982
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2018 5:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LongBeachPoly wrote: | | Mike@LG wrote: | | LongBeachPoly wrote: | | Mike@LG wrote: | | Quote: | Players that shoot 1-2 times per game - those players can't shoot. If you're shooting 1-2 threes per game, you're passing up hard shots and a bunch of easy shots as well.
|
Disagree. It's more like, the players best strength is passing. In this case, Lonzo. So he thinks the NEXT shot is the best shot, not the spot up 3. |
well, Lonzo shoots around 4-5 per game? I'm talking (perimeter) players that avg 1-2 per game and play 30 minutes.
Those players can't shoot threes and are unwilling. They aren't just passing up hard ones, they are passing up easy ones as well.
You'd be hard pressed to find a good shooter that limits himself to 1-2 threes per game.
And remember the premise that's being debated: limiting your threes to 1-2 per game increases your % because you're passing up the hard shots and taking the easy threes. |
https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/balllo01/gamelog/2019
A lot of 2-3 attempts per game. A lot of 6s. There's a large variance there.
I don't think it's about "limiting" the attempts. I DO think it's about taking good looks within the context of one's skill. There's a BIG difference there. You can take 8-10 3s and they can ALL be good shots, or just 3, and they're all bad. |
But that's the point BigGameHames is trying to make. He's saying, % goes up when you limit your attempts.
And I'm saying the same thing you're saying - take the good looks within the context of one's skill. And if you can shoot threes, you're going to get good looks all game. They'll be there and you'll get more than 1-2 per game.
So anyone playing 30 minutes a game and only taking 1-2 threes a game, are passing up good looks on purpose. They're not just passing up the hard looks.
Even Svi avg 2 attempts per game in 10 minutes and I don't think he takes any hard looks at all. |
Dude you’re completely misrepresenting what I’m trying to say. It has nothing to do with a specific amount. I feel like you’re intentionally misunderstanding my point in order to misrepresent it and poke holes in it. What I’m saying can’t be this hard to understand. If you’re debating to engage in thoughtful conversation great, you’re simply debating to win and using a sleazy method in order to do so. If you shoot less you often take less hard shots which leads to a higher %. If you don’t agree fine but don’t twist my theory into something else so you can disprove it.
Last edited by BigGameHames on Wed Dec 12, 2018 5:33 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16162
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2018 5:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BigGameHames wrote: | | LongBeachPoly wrote: | | BigGameHames wrote: | | No you invented the 1-2 attempt number. The discussion is simply regarding the idea that less attempts makes it easier to shoot a higher percentage because you can pass up more difficult ones. |
Did I? The discussion started being about Rubio vs. Lonzo and how even though their % were both bad, Lonzo was a significantly better shooter because Rubio only attempts 1.6 per game. Then you brought up Ingram and how he only shot 2 per game.
Here it is:
| BigGameHames wrote: | | LongBeachPoly wrote: | | BigGameHames wrote: | | LongBeachPoly wrote: | | BigGameHames wrote: | | The God Particle wrote: | | BigGameHames wrote: | | Rubio is a valuable and underrated player but if you don’t see why many feel Lonzo projects to be much better I think you’re ignoring the facts. Lonzo is a much better shooter than 2nd year Rubio. He’s shooting 32% from 3 on 4 per game while Rubio shot 29% on 1.6 per game. Lonzo also has a higher FG% and considerably higher efg% than second year Rubio. They are comparable players right now, in a few years Lonzo will more than likely far surpass him. Who’s a better defender is very debatable though, I agree with that part. I prefer Zo because of his ability to pick up full court and guard multiple positions but Rubio is one of the few guys in the NBA with as quick of hands as him and manages to get more steals while gambling less. I’m a Rubio fan which is part of the reason I’m such a big Lonzo fan. A second year player who’s already on par with him as a player and has far more physical gifts projects to be much better and a damn good NBA player. Rubio is his floor. |
I think the differences (very very slight) that you're quoting for 2nd year Lonzo and Rubio are due much more to today's pace of play and analytics driven league.
Lonzo better have a much better eFG% today. |
The 3 point shooting is not a slight difference let alone a very slight difference. 2.5% better on over twice as many attempts infers he’s a considerably better shooter. |
Yeah, all depends how you look at it.
Rubio 1st year - 34.0%
Rubio 2nd year - 29.3%
Lonzo 1st year - 30.5%
Lonzo 2nd year - 31.8%
It all depends on how you look at it to come up with "Lonzo's a considerably better shooter" |
Attempts matter quite a bit IMO. |
Which is interesting. Do you want someone shooting a low % to shoot more? Would Lonzo be an even better shooter if he was attempting 10 3pt fga? |
No I’m not talking about what kind of shots I want a player to take. I’m acknowledging that when a player takes less shots they almost always are taking less of the more difficult ones. More shots also correlates to more of a willingness to take tougher ones which will hurt the %.
We saw that with Ingram last year when he shot 39% because he only took about 2 a game. He only took easy ones and so his % indicated a far better shooter than he actually is.
I think Lonzo takes a pretty good amount. Enough to keep the D honest. |
|
The example I used had that many attempts. At no point did I say the specific amount was a determining factor. You assumed that. |
It'd be different if we had a general discussion going and then you used examples of Rubio and Ingram.
We had a specific discussion going about Rubio and Lonzo and you brought up that Rubio's 1.6 attempts vs. Lonzo's much higher attempt was significantly better. Then you brought in Ingram and his 2 attempts.
Now you're saying I'm randomly bringing up 1-2 attempts and the discussion is actually not about Rubio or Lonzo but all shooters in general?
So you just randomly changed the topic and just randomly want to talk about all shooters all of a sudden?
Last edited by LongBeachPoly on Wed Dec 12, 2018 5:34 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
epak
Retired Number
Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Posts: 34147
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2018 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Cccccccombo breaker~ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BigGameHames
Star Player
Joined: 24 May 2015
Posts: 7982
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2018 5:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LongBeachPoly wrote: | | BigGameHames wrote: | | LongBeachPoly wrote: | | BigGameHames wrote: | | No you invented the 1-2 attempt number. The discussion is simply regarding the idea that less attempts makes it easier to shoot a higher percentage because you can pass up more difficult ones. |
Did I? The discussion started being about Rubio vs. Lonzo and how even though their % were both bad, Lonzo was a significantly better shooter because Rubio only attempts 1.6 per game. Then you brought up Ingram and how he only shot 2 per game.
Here it is:
| BigGameHames wrote: | | LongBeachPoly wrote: | | BigGameHames wrote: | | LongBeachPoly wrote: | | BigGameHames wrote: | | The God Particle wrote: | | BigGameHames wrote: | | Rubio is a valuable and underrated player but if you don’t see why many feel Lonzo projects to be much better I think you’re ignoring the facts. Lonzo is a much better shooter than 2nd year Rubio. He’s shooting 32% from 3 on 4 per game while Rubio shot 29% on 1.6 per game. Lonzo also has a higher FG% and considerably higher efg% than second year Rubio. They are comparable players right now, in a few years Lonzo will more than likely far surpass him. Who’s a better defender is very debatable though, I agree with that part. I prefer Zo because of his ability to pick up full court and guard multiple positions but Rubio is one of the few guys in the NBA with as quick of hands as him and manages to get more steals while gambling less. I’m a Rubio fan which is part of the reason I’m such a big Lonzo fan. A second year player who’s already on par with him as a player and has far more physical gifts projects to be much better and a damn good NBA player. Rubio is his floor. |
I think the differences (very very slight) that you're quoting for 2nd year Lonzo and Rubio are due much more to today's pace of play and analytics driven league.
Lonzo better have a much better eFG% today. |
The 3 point shooting is not a slight difference let alone a very slight difference. 2.5% better on over twice as many attempts infers he’s a considerably better shooter. |
Yeah, all depends how you look at it.
Rubio 1st year - 34.0%
Rubio 2nd year - 29.3%
Lonzo 1st year - 30.5%
Lonzo 2nd year - 31.8%
It all depends on how you look at it to come up with "Lonzo's a considerably better shooter" |
Attempts matter quite a bit IMO. |
Which is interesting. Do you want someone shooting a low % to shoot more? Would Lonzo be an even better shooter if he was attempting 10 3pt fga? |
No I’m not talking about what kind of shots I want a player to take. I’m acknowledging that when a player takes less shots they almost always are taking less of the more difficult ones. More shots also correlates to more of a willingness to take tougher ones which will hurt the %.
We saw that with Ingram last year when he shot 39% because he only took about 2 a game. He only took easy ones and so his % indicated a far better shooter than he actually is.
I think Lonzo takes a pretty good amount. Enough to keep the D honest. |
|
The example I used had that many attempts. At no point did I say the specific amount was a determining factor. You assumed that. |
It'd be different if we had a general discussion going and then you used examples of Rubio and Ingram.
We had a specific discussion going about Rubio and Lonzo and you brought up that Rubio's 1.6 attempts vs. Lonzo's much higher attempt was significantly better. Then you brought in Ingram and his 2 attempts.
Now you're saying I'm randoming bringing up 1-2 attempts and the discussion is actually not about Rubio or Lonzo but all shooters in general?
So you just randomly changed the topic and just randomly want to talk about all shooters all of a sudden? |
It’s a theory I have in general for shooters and I applied it to the Lonzo vs Rubio debate. Ingram is a Laker so I know his stats more so than other players and used him as a reason why I believe it. They happened to both fall between 1-2 shots per game but at no point did I infer the rule is for 1-2 shots. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16162
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2018 5:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BigGameHames wrote: |
It’s a theory I have in general for shooters and I applied it to the Lonzo vs Rubio debate. Ingram is a Laker so I know his stats more so than other players and used him as a reason why I believe it. They happened to both fall between 1-2 shots per game but at no point did I infer the rule is for 1-2 shots. |
Yeah, and maybe I'll give you my theory and why I disagree when using it on players with low averages.
My theory is that if you play 30 min a game, you get (and I'm just throwing out an example):
Easy looks - 4-5 a game
Medium looks - 3-4 a game
Hard looks - everything after that is a hard look
So a player like Ingram, if he reduced his shot from 3 to 2 or 2 to 1, wouldn't make a difference because he's not just passing up hard looks, or medium looks, but the easy ones as well.
So that's why I don't buy that theory - not for players that shoot at the low levels.
A player like Harden who shoots 11 attempts a game, yeah, I can buy it. Probably 3-4 of his looks are hard.
I mean, if Luke told Lonzo only take open 3s, I think he'd still get 4 a game.
So that's my theory.
And then the part about your % going up, I think 1-2 attempts per game actually hurts your % because it's not enough to get into a rhythm. So someone like a Svi I think his % will go up as he gets more attempts, not less. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BigGameHames
Star Player
Joined: 24 May 2015
Posts: 7982
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2018 5:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LongBeachPoly wrote: | | BigGameHames wrote: |
It’s a theory I have in general for shooters and I applied it to the Lonzo vs Rubio debate. Ingram is a Laker so I know his stats more so than other players and used him as a reason why I believe it. They happened to both fall between 1-2 shots per game but at no point did I infer the rule is for 1-2 shots. |
Yeah, and maybe I'll give you my theory and why I disagree when using it on players with low averages.
My theory is that if you play 30 min a game, you get (and I'm just throwing out an example):
Easy looks - 4-5 a game
Medium looks - 3-4 a game
Hard looks - everything after that is a hard look
So a player like Ingram, if he reduced his shot from 3 to 2 or 2 to 1, wouldn't make a difference because he's not just passing up hard looks, or medium looks, but the easy ones as well.
So that's why I don't buy that theory - not for players that shoot at the low levels.
A player like Harden who shoots 11 attempts a game, yeah, I can buy it. Probably 3-4 of his looks are hard.
I mean, if Luke told Lonzo only take open 3s, I think he'd still get 4 a game.
So that's my theory.
And then the part about your % going up, I think 1-2 attempts per game actually hurts your % because it's not enough to get into a rhythm. So someone like a Svi I think his % will go up as he gets more attempts, not less. |
Yes we established that we disagree already. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16162
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2018 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BigGameHames wrote: | | LongBeachPoly wrote: | | BigGameHames wrote: |
It’s a theory I have in general for shooters and I applied it to the Lonzo vs Rubio debate. Ingram is a Laker so I know his stats more so than other players and used him as a reason why I believe it. They happened to both fall between 1-2 shots per game but at no point did I infer the rule is for 1-2 shots. |
Yeah, and maybe I'll give you my theory and why I disagree when using it on players with low averages.
My theory is that if you play 30 min a game, you get (and I'm just throwing out an example):
Easy looks - 4-5 a game
Medium looks - 3-4 a game
Hard looks - everything after that is a hard look
So a player like Ingram, if he reduced his shot from 3 to 2 or 2 to 1, wouldn't make a difference because he's not just passing up hard looks, or medium looks, but the easy ones as well.
So that's why I don't buy that theory - not for players that shoot at the low levels.
A player like Harden who shoots 11 attempts a game, yeah, I can buy it. Probably 3-4 of his looks are hard.
I mean, if Luke told Lonzo only take open 3s, I think he'd still get 4 a game.
So that's my theory.
And then the part about your % going up, I think 1-2 attempts per game actually hurts your % because it's not enough to get into a rhythm. So someone like a Svi I think his % will go up as he gets more attempts, not less. |
Yes we established that we disagree already. |
Man, you're snarky as can be huh? Even when I try and reconcile with you.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike@LG
Moderator
Joined: 10 Apr 2001
Posts: 65135
Location: Orange County, CA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16162
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2018 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mike@LG wrote: | https://stats.nba.com/players/shots-closest-defender/?Season=2018-19&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&TeamID=1610612747&CloseDefDistRange=2-4%20Feet%20-%20Tight
When Lonzo Ball is the 2nd most frequent tightly defended shooter with consistent playing time... |
What I see here is that none of the Lakers take tightly contested threes? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BigGameHames
Star Player
Joined: 24 May 2015
Posts: 7982
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2018 6:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LongBeachPoly wrote: | | BigGameHames wrote: | | LongBeachPoly wrote: | | BigGameHames wrote: |
It’s a theory I have in general for shooters and I applied it to the Lonzo vs Rubio debate. Ingram is a Laker so I know his stats more so than other players and used him as a reason why I believe it. They happened to both fall between 1-2 shots per game but at no point did I infer the rule is for 1-2 shots. |
Yeah, and maybe I'll give you my theory and why I disagree when using it on players with low averages.
My theory is that if you play 30 min a game, you get (and I'm just throwing out an example):
Easy looks - 4-5 a game
Medium looks - 3-4 a game
Hard looks - everything after that is a hard look
So a player like Ingram, if he reduced his shot from 3 to 2 or 2 to 1, wouldn't make a difference because he's not just passing up hard looks, or medium looks, but the easy ones as well.
So that's why I don't buy that theory - not for players that shoot at the low levels.
A player like Harden who shoots 11 attempts a game, yeah, I can buy it. Probably 3-4 of his looks are hard.
I mean, if Luke told Lonzo only take open 3s, I think he'd still get 4 a game.
So that's my theory.
And then the part about your % going up, I think 1-2 attempts per game actually hurts your % because it's not enough to get into a rhythm. So someone like a Svi I think his % will go up as he gets more attempts, not less. |
Yes we established that we disagree already. |
Man, you're snarky as can be huh? Even when I try and reconcile with you.... |
I apologize. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BigGameHames
Star Player
Joined: 24 May 2015
Posts: 7982
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2018 6:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mike@LG wrote: | https://stats.nba.com/players/shots-closest-defender/?Season=2018-19&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&TeamID=1610612747&CloseDefDistRange=2-4%20Feet%20-%20Tight
When Lonzo Ball is the 2nd most frequent tightly defended shooter with consistent playing time... |
Gravity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2018 6:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pio2u wrote: | | Quote: | UniqueSports + @UniqueSportplus
Lonzo Ball is holding Opposing Point Gaurds to 97-298 (32.55%) FG% over 27 Games to start the NBA season. |
|
That's the same fan blog that keeps posting unsourced stats about Ball. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tox
Franchise Player
Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 17880
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2018 6:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LongBeachPoly wrote: |
1) instinct to cover an open 3 pt shooter - that's why I mentioned in a series. In a long season where you play 82 games and you play a team once and move onto the next team another night - yeah, you just do what you do. But in a series, that's when you make adjustments.
2) Him shooting 37.5% - that's what you live with. You make him beat you 4 times in a series. Remember the premise that we're working with though - he's there to draw gravity to open up lanes for LeBron. So, we're saying that's working for the Lakers. Lonzo shooting at a low % and opening up lanes for LeBron which is working for the Lakers. So you'd have to adjust to that. Pick your poison.
We know LeBron's a proven commodity. Wouldn't teams rather leave Lonzo open to see if he can beat them in a series? |
Gravity isn't really a binary thing. I agree teams in the playoffs will sag off of Lonzo and make him beat you in the playoffs, and that's a legit concern. But they aren't going to play him like they do Ben Simmons or Tony Allen, and that does make a difference. If he refused to shoot entirely, or had Brandon Ingram type volume at his percentages, he would be given Tony Allen treatment.
And if Lonzo can actually hit 37.5% then teams will wisen up to it real quickly, because 1.125 PPP is really high.
Last edited by tox on Wed Dec 12, 2018 6:46 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2018 6:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mike@LG wrote: | https://stats.nba.com/players/shots-closest-defender/?Season=2018-19&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&TeamID=1610612747&CloseDefDistRange=2-4%20Feet%20-%20Tight
When Lonzo Ball is the 2nd most frequent tightly defended shooter with consistent playing time... |
I'm not sure how you draw that conclusion from this data. Are you looking at the percentage of his shots that are tightly defended? If you are really looking at frequency, you should be looking at attempts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16162
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2018 7:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tox wrote: | | LongBeachPoly wrote: |
1) instinct to cover an open 3 pt shooter - that's why I mentioned in a series. In a long season where you play 82 games and you play a team once and move onto the next team another night - yeah, you just do what you do. But in a series, that's when you make adjustments.
2) Him shooting 37.5% - that's what you live with. You make him beat you 4 times in a series. Remember the premise that we're working with though - he's there to draw gravity to open up lanes for LeBron. So, we're saying that's working for the Lakers. Lonzo shooting at a low % and opening up lanes for LeBron which is working for the Lakers. So you'd have to adjust to that. Pick your poison.
We know LeBron's a proven commodity. Wouldn't teams rather leave Lonzo open to see if he can beat them in a series? |
Gravity isn't really a binary thing. I agree teams in the playoffs will sag off of Lonzo and make him beat you in the playoffs, and that's a legit concern. But they aren't going to play him like they do Ben Simmons or Tony Allen, and that does make a difference. If he refused to shoot entirely, or had Brandon Ingram type volume at his percentages, he would be given Tony Allen treatment.
And if Lonzo can actually hit 37.5% then teams will wisen up to it real quickly, because 1.125 PPP is really high. |
The thing is, I don't think Lonzo is consistent enough to take any of his numbers and count on it.
Here's his numbers:
6ft + (Wide Open)
2017 - 32.6%
2018 - 37.5%
4-6ft (Open)
2017 - 30.5%
2018 - 28.8%
2018 - 3ptfg% by month:
Oct - 41.0%
Nov - 26.5%
Dec - 27.3%
So, I don't know how much you can count on his 37.5% from 6ft+ and say - he'll consistently drain those if you leave him wide open in a playoff series. You can also look at that data and conclude that as long as someone's within 6ft of Lonzo, he'll struggle.
He's just an inconsistent shooter. Can he be consistent at one aspect of shooting? Maybe, but if I'm the opponent, I'm going to make him beat me that way.
What's the alternative? Especially if his role is to create driving lanes for LeBron and if it's working and if we're winning because of it. Might as well try something else. We're talking about someone avg 8.3 ppg. How much would he have to avg for an opponent to abandon the plan of leaving him open in the playoffs? 15ppg? 20ppg? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
