Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 4:33 pm Post subject: What is statisticly the highest percentage shot per value?
Watching LFR's newest video on having the best rebounding guard group in the league along with 2 of the top 3 pace setting point guards is making me think Luke, Magic and Rob are on to something analytically.
Is it possible that the highest percentage shot per value isn't the corner 3, but instead the layup in transition?
Is productive pace better than court spacing as a philosophical concept?
Is this how you beat the Warriors?
Sounds like a very fun experiment, with an LBJ at the peak of his powers, to run.
Curious if some of the gurus on here know the answer to this. _________________ "If You're Afraid To Fail...Then You're Probably Going To Fail."
- Kobe
Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 4:51 pm Post subject: Re: What is statisticly the highest percentage shot per value?
CervantesRises wrote:
Watching LFR's newest video on having the best rebounding guard group in the league along with 2 of the top 3 pace setting point guards is making me think Luke, Magic and Rob are on to something analytically.
Is it possible that the highest percentage shot per value isn't the corner 3, but instead the layup in transition?
Is productive pace better than court spacing as a philosophical concept?
Is this how you beat the Warriors?
Sounds like a very fun experiment, with an LBJ at the peak of his powers, to run.
Curious if some of the gurus on here know the answer to this.
I think you are def right. Teams will be scared to give us long rebounds after missed 3s because it will be a lay up and FT fest for us.
Even Phil jackson once said if you can’t run in transition for easy buckets you will have a hard time winning games. GSW does this extremely well.
Kuzma, Ingram, James, Lonzo, Stephenson, Rondo, Hard these guys are all good rebounders and once they grab it they can push it all the way.
Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 5:23 pm Post subject: Re: What is statisticly the highest percentage shot per value?
CervantesRises wrote:
Watching LFR's newest video on having the best rebounding guard group in the league along with 2 of the top 3 pace setting point guards is making me think Luke, Magic and Rob are on to something analytically.
Is it possible that the highest percentage shot per value isn't the corner 3, but instead the layup in transition?
Is productive pace better than court spacing as a philosophical concept?
Is this how you beat the Warriors?
Sounds like a very fun experiment, with an LBJ at the peak of his powers, to run.
Curious if some of the gurus on here know the answer to this.
Open shots at the rim have always produced the most points, the problem is getting them. You can get an open corner 3 far more often than you can get those shots at the rim, although the Lakers are built to maximize that as much as possible.
The Warriors are vulnerable to team who can crash the offensive glass, and I think part of the construction of this Lakers team is to try to exploit that.
Regarding the rebounding and go, teams will do like the Pelicans do, forget about offensive rebounds and keep at least 2 guys back on defense after a shot.
Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 6:20 pm Post subject: Re: What is statisticly the highest percentage shot per value?
CervantesRises wrote:
Watching LFR's newest video on having the best rebounding guard group in the league along with 2 of the top 3 pace setting point guards is making me think Luke, Magic and Rob are on to something analytically.
Is it possible that the highest percentage shot per value isn't the corner 3, but instead the layup in transition?
Is productive pace better than court spacing as a philosophical concept?
Is this how you beat the Warriors?
Sounds like a very fun experiment, with an LBJ at the peak of his powers, to run.
Curious if some of the gurus on here know the answer to this.
If Magic & Rob actually thought they had the key to beating the Warriors, why would they sign everyone to 1 year deals?
What happens if we actually end up beating the Warriors this year? Everybody leaves?
Joined: 07 Jun 2002 Posts: 9674 Location: San Diego
Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2018 12:02 am Post subject: Re: What is statisticly the highest percentage shot per value?
LongBeachPoly wrote:
CervantesRises wrote:
Watching LFR's newest video on having the best rebounding guard group in the league along with 2 of the top 3 pace setting point guards is making me think Luke, Magic and Rob are on to something analytically.
Is it possible that the highest percentage shot per value isn't the corner 3, but instead the layup in transition?
Is productive pace better than court spacing as a philosophical concept?
Is this how you beat the Warriors?
Sounds like a very fun experiment, with an LBJ at the peak of his powers, to run.
Curious if some of the gurus on here know the answer to this.
If Magic & Rob actually thought they had the key to beating the Warriors, why would they sign everyone to 1 year deals?
What happens if we actually end up beating the Warriors this year? Everybody leaves?
If we win it all this year, we can use our cap to pay the existing players!! _________________ Never argue with stupid people! They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience!! - Twain
Supposing it's not a contested 3, then the best value shot is a 3 mostly due to the fact it's fairly easy to obtain compared to dunks and layups. Obviously "long" 2's are the least value which is why all the teams now primarily focus on shots in the paint or a 3 pointer. If a player can shoot 40% on his 3 point attempts, he would need to convert 60% on his 2 point attempts to match that production on a points-per-shot basis.
Not only are open 3's far more available than a dunk/layup, but there are way more players in today's game who can shoot greater than 40% on 3's as opposed to players who score 60% on 2's. Also, almost all they guys who do shoot 60% on 2's are big men who don't have the offense run through them and they just maximize their opportunities through rebounding and playmakers breaking down the defense. A few guys like KAT and Steph were both real close to 60%/40% this season, but they were both short on the 2PT%.
But to delve more into the spirit of the OP, I'm not really sold on this not playing the warriors game and somehow winning a ring. First, it's pretty vague what that means, but it must have something to do with the fact that the warriors are clearly the best shooting team in the league, and we are either the worst or close to it. And our recent additions have probably made it worse as far as that goes.
So somehow, we're going to beat the warriors with something other than distance shooting, free throws. That leaves, as far as points go, layups, dunks. Even midrange is no high quality shots for this team.
The problem is, if you disregard shooting, it's not like the warriors are bad at that either. you think we are better at defense as them? Arguable. They were pretty good last year whenever they chose to be. Are we better at passing? again, not obviously. Warriors move the ball better than any team.
I'm not sure where our advantage lies. Just because we have lebron doesn't mean jack, especially if we don't get the normal lebron calls. Kyrie and Ray allen would always bail him out, and I hope Ingram can bail him out or someone else. We'll see. Lots of doubts.
Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2018 11:19 am Post subject: Re: What is statisticly the highest percentage shot per value?
Wino wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:
CervantesRises wrote:
Watching LFR's newest video on having the best rebounding guard group in the league along with 2 of the top 3 pace setting point guards is making me think Luke, Magic and Rob are on to something analytically.
Is it possible that the highest percentage shot per value isn't the corner 3, but instead the layup in transition?
Is productive pace better than court spacing as a philosophical concept?
Is this how you beat the Warriors?
Sounds like a very fun experiment, with an LBJ at the peak of his powers, to run.
Curious if some of the gurus on here know the answer to this.
If Magic & Rob actually thought they had the key to beating the Warriors, why would they sign everyone to 1 year deals?
What happens if we actually end up beating the Warriors this year? Everybody leaves?
If we win it all this year, we can use our cap to pay the existing players!!
If we win it all and the players signed to 1 year deals were major contributors, then we won't be able to re-sign all of them.
Look at how Houston lost Ariza to Phoenix. Or how Dallas lost Tyson Chandler after their championship year.
So if Magic & Rob had this vision that this cast was the right cast to beat GS, then signing them to 1 yr deals didn't make sense.
Better to lock them up for multiple years.
Only reason to sign them to 1 yr deals is that they don't really believe in this cast so they're keeping their options open.
Joined: 10 Apr 2001 Posts: 65135 Location: Orange County, CA
Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2018 4:44 pm Post subject:
Dunks.
Want to beat the Warriors? Get more possessions, limit to eliminate offensive rebounding opportunities with one-and-out defensive rebounding, attack their scorers off-the-dribble and maybe get them into foul trouble. Limit turnovers.
Can't always control shooting, but all the stuff listed is what the Lakers roster is capable of. _________________ Resident Car Nut.
Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2018 9:10 am Post subject: Re: What is statisticly the highest percentage shot per value?
CervantesRises wrote:
Watching LFR's newest video on having the best rebounding guard group in the league along with 2 of the top 3 pace setting point guards is making me think Luke, Magic and Rob are on to something analytically.
Is it possible that the highest percentage shot per value isn't the corner 3, but instead the layup in transition?
Is productive pace better than court spacing as a philosophical concept?
Is this how you beat the Warriors?
Sounds like a very fun experiment, with an LBJ at the peak of his powers, to run.
Curious if some of the gurus on here know the answer to this.
A fast pace just means you are getting more possessions per game; it doesn't necessarily mean those possessions are mostly uncontested layups.
As far as I can make out there isn't any strong correlations between pace and success. Both slow pace and fast pace teams have been unsuccessful and successful.
The current Warriors are a fast-paced team and they are successful. The early 90s version of the Warriors, which was known for its fast pace (Run TMC) was terrible. There have been recent ring teams that were in the top 5 in the league in pace and the bottom 5 in pace.
Last year, the Rockets, who were 13th in pace, gave the Warriors the most trouble; the Warriors blew away the Pelicans, who were #1 in the league in pace, by 20 points in most of the games in their series, so I don't think pace is the secret to beating them.
But to delve more into the spirit of the OP, I'm not really sold on this not playing the warriors game and somehow winning a ring. First, it's pretty vague what that means, but it must have something to do with the fact that the warriors are clearly the best shooting team in the league, and we are either the worst or close to it. And our recent additions have probably made it worse as far as that goes.
So somehow, we're going to beat the warriors with something other than distance shooting, free throws. That leaves, as far as points go, layups, dunks. Even midrange is no high quality shots for this team.
The problem is, if you disregard shooting, it's not like the warriors are bad at that either. you think we are better at defense as them? Arguable. They were pretty good last year whenever they chose to be. Are we better at passing? again, not obviously. Warriors move the ball better than any team.
I'm not sure where our advantage lies. Just because we have lebron doesn't mean jack, especially if we don't get the normal lebron calls. Kyrie and Ray allen would always bail him out, and I hope Ingram can bail him out or someone else. We'll see. Lots of doubts.
Curious if a prime Shaq led team can beat this team in a 7 game series. Say the 2001 Sixers but instead of Mutombo, sub Shaq in with all those perimeter 3&D guys plus AI/Kobe
On a league-wide basis over the course a several seasons, I'm not sure it matters quite so much which shot carries the highest value per shot overall.
What matters more methinks is which shot a particular roster can maximize value for itself, and the corollary, which shot your opponent values highest (so that you can defend that team in a most highly valued way.)
Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2018 3:17 pm Post subject: Re: What is statisticly the highest percentage shot per value?
activeverb wrote:
A fast pace just means you are getting more possessions per game; it doesn't necessarily mean those possessions are mostly uncontested layups.
As far as I can make out there isn't any strong correlations between pace and success. Both slow pace and fast pace teams have been unsuccessful and successful.
I wouldn’t expect any consistent correlation at all. It’s a stylistic choice influenced by personnel. Are you maximizing your results by playing fast or slow? Last year, the only high Pace team that finished high in ORtg was Golden State.
There does seem to be a mild correlation between Pace and layups, though. New Orleans led the league in Pace and percentage of layups, and most of the other teams at the top of the layup percentage list were high Pace teams. But then, Memphis had the second slowest Pace and was second in layup percentage. Go figure.
But to delve more into the spirit of the OP, I'm not really sold on this not playing the warriors game and somehow winning a ring. First, it's pretty vague what that means, but it must have something to do with the fact that the warriors are clearly the best shooting team in the league, and we are either the worst or close to it. And our recent additions have probably made it worse as far as that goes.
So somehow, we're going to beat the warriors with something other than distance shooting, free throws. That leaves, as far as points go, layups, dunks. Even midrange is no high quality shots for this team.
The problem is, if you disregard shooting, it's not like the warriors are bad at that either. you think we are better at defense as them? Arguable. They were pretty good last year whenever they chose to be. Are we better at passing? again, not obviously. Warriors move the ball better than any team.
I'm not sure where our advantage lies. Just because we have lebron doesn't mean jack, especially if we don't get the normal lebron calls. Kyrie and Ray allen would always bail him out, and I hope Ingram can bail him out or someone else. We'll see. Lots of doubts.
I agree with pretty much all of this. (Yes, really. Get off the floor and back in your chair.). I think Magic’s answer would be that we are going to out-tough them with guys like Rondo and Stephenson. I’m not buying that, but this is a transitional year anyway. The concept is that we’ll see what happens with the kids, sign a second star in free agency, keep the pieces that work, and add pieces to fill in the holes. If we make the playoffs this season (which we should manage with ease if we don’t have a rash of injuries), anything else is a bonus. Meanwhile, Curry gets a year older, and the Warriors have to face massive luxury tax issues.
But to delve more into the spirit of the OP, I'm not really sold on this not playing the warriors game and somehow winning a ring. First, it's pretty vague what that means, but it must have something to do with the fact that the warriors are clearly the best shooting team in the league, and we are either the worst or close to it. And our recent additions have probably made it worse as far as that goes.
So somehow, we're going to beat the warriors with something other than distance shooting, free throws. That leaves, as far as points go, layups, dunks. Even midrange is no high quality shots for this team.
The problem is, if you disregard shooting, it's not like the warriors are bad at that either. you think we are better at defense as them? Arguable. They were pretty good last year whenever they chose to be. Are we better at passing? again, not obviously. Warriors move the ball better than any team.
I'm not sure where our advantage lies. Just because we have lebron doesn't mean jack, especially if we don't get the normal lebron calls. Kyrie and Ray allen would always bail him out, and I hope Ingram can bail him out or someone else. We'll see. Lots of doubts.
I agree with pretty much all of this. (Yes, really. Get off the floor and back in your chair.). I think Magic’s answer would be that we are going to out-tough them with guys like Rondo and Stephenson. I’m not buying that, but this is a transitional year anyway. The concept is that we’ll see what happens with the kids, sign a second star in free agency, keep the pieces that work, and add pieces to fill in the holes. If we make the playoffs this season (which we should manage with ease if we don’t have a rash of injuries), anything else is a bonus. Meanwhile, Curry gets a year older, and the Warriors have to face massive luxury tax issues.
The only conceivable way we contend this year is if Ingram, Ball or some of the other young guys take major leaps; if our success really depends on the rent-a-vets, we aren't going to have much success.
But to delve more into the spirit of the OP, I'm not really sold on this not playing the warriors game and somehow winning a ring. First, it's pretty vague what that means, but it must have something to do with the fact that the warriors are clearly the best shooting team in the league, and we are either the worst or close to it. And our recent additions have probably made it worse as far as that goes.
So somehow, we're going to beat the warriors with something other than distance shooting, free throws. That leaves, as far as points go, layups, dunks. Even midrange is no high quality shots for this team.
The problem is, if you disregard shooting, it's not like the warriors are bad at that either. you think we are better at defense as them? Arguable. They were pretty good last year whenever they chose to be. Are we better at passing? again, not obviously. Warriors move the ball better than any team.
I'm not sure where our advantage lies. Just because we have lebron doesn't mean jack, especially if we don't get the normal lebron calls. Kyrie and Ray allen would always bail him out, and I hope Ingram can bail him out or someone else. We'll see. Lots of doubts.
Curious if a prime Shaq led team can beat this team in a 7 game series. Say the 2001 Sixers but instead of Mutombo, sub Shaq in with all those perimeter 3&D guys plus AI/Kobe
Shaq would be a game changer since hes the best big man in the league. There's no better single addition than the best big man in the league to a team, unless there's a smaller guy like Jordan who is just out of this world good. There is no such player currently, so yes, adding Shaq would do wonders. Or more for today, adding AD or Giannis or the like would be huge. IF there is one weakness the warriors have its the low post big man. But now they have COusins, which was really not good news for me, even though i know people think he's not very good lol. He's like...awesome, when healthy. always has been. So thats a little annoying.
People also act like the warriors are this high powered offense that can be countered by our team, for example. But that's not really true. The warriors are also far more capable of adapting and making adjustments than us or probably anyone. They have so many ways. If their shots are not falling, they can easily turn into a hard-nosed defensive team. Relatively speaking, they are in a similar situation as showtime lakers...they will not lose important games very often.
We may do well, but it's not likely due to skill or playing really well. More like the typical lebron formula...which is the calls need to go your way and some surprise player or two hits some big shots. That works, as we've seen, one out of 3 times vs the warriors. And the one time was pre Durant.
I see a lot of delusion with our fans with this pickup. A lot of hope (many years worth) are resting on this idea that lbj can deliver rings.
But to delve more into the spirit of the OP, I'm not really sold on this not playing the warriors game and somehow winning a ring. First, it's pretty vague what that means, but it must have something to do with the fact that the warriors are clearly the best shooting team in the league, and we are either the worst or close to it. And our recent additions have probably made it worse as far as that goes.
So somehow, we're going to beat the warriors with something other than distance shooting, free throws. That leaves, as far as points go, layups, dunks. Even midrange is no high quality shots for this team.
The problem is, if you disregard shooting, it's not like the warriors are bad at that either. you think we are better at defense as them? Arguable. They were pretty good last year whenever they chose to be. Are we better at passing? again, not obviously. Warriors move the ball better than any team.
I'm not sure where our advantage lies. Just because we have lebron doesn't mean jack, especially if we don't get the normal lebron calls. Kyrie and Ray allen would always bail him out, and I hope Ingram can bail him out or someone else. We'll see. Lots of doubts.
Curious if a prime Shaq led team can beat this team in a 7 game series. Say the 2001 Sixers but instead of Mutombo, sub Shaq in with all those perimeter 3&D guys plus AI/Kobe
Shaq would do unspeakable things to the Warriors. The key would be pace.
The Warriors would have to try to run the Shaq-led team off the court, and they'd be very capable -- there'd be nothing Shaq could do if they got that ridiculous pace-and-space thing rolling and scored three points every possession for long stretches.
But if Shaq's team was able to take the air of the ball and slow the pace down consistently, I think the Warriors would start to experience an identity crisis. Slow-paced games would mean Green, Durant and any other perimeter help defenders would be in serious foul trouble all series long, as I doubt the Warriors would even bother trying to put one of their seven-foot stiffs on Shaq. They would almost have to concede baskets and try to trade threes for twos to speed the game back up.
Makes me think about Phil's Shaq teams -- they never panicked when the other team went on a run and would just keep pounding the ball inside. I wonder if we've partially forgotten how relentless the Lakers were about getting Shaq the ball in his spots and the cumulative effect of a guy that big and strong getting the ball that close to the rim that often for 38 minutes a game over seven games. The game is so different now. How would the Warriors respond to that sustained level of brutality?
It would be fascinating, a true clash of styles that we don't see today. Houston was able to suffocate the Warriors similarly to what I described using two dominant lead guards instead of one giant center, so that was sorta close.
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
