or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment, Culture, and Sports › NBA 2016-2017 Season Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

NBA 2016-2017 Season Thread - Page 1233

post #18481 of 27330
If Malone and Rodman were coming into the league now, I doubt they'd even be drafted. Malone with that midrange game, Rodman an offensive rebounding maven. It reminds me of that scene in Moneyball in the draft room.

Or at least, they'd be bit players. 12 minute a night guys.
post #18482 of 27330
You obviously aren't talking about Karl Malone so I assume you mean Brendan Malone.
post #18483 of 27330
managed to catch a couple games this weekend (yay free league pass preview!)

golden state's offense is kinda different, i guess (much more freewheeling, way fewer post-ups), but tonight they were prone to the same sort of dry spells as last year. most of it seemed heavily correlated to curry being on the bench, though. their defense is still tons of arms, even if green can't (and shouldn't be able to handle) lma.

klay really has improved since last year, i'll give him credit. he certainly may be worth that max contract soon. his drive game is wayyy better, and he has less of a conscience, which is really fun to watch.

as much as i love iggy's overall game, i do worry that the team doesn't have much on the way of offense outside of curry and klay. i guess it's premature to say that w/ david lee still out.

portland is same old same old. i honestly think lillard is kinda overrated. people are gonna judge him off of last year's playoff series, where he dominated, but he's nowhere near superstar level, more like borderline west-all star, or backup east all-star level. he's not a good passer for a pg and when his shot isn't falling, he can't finish at the rim that well. wes matthews and lma are stalwarts as usual. batum is underwhelming as well. he looks like he would be an absolute monster, but he's just not superlative at anything. he's got decent vision and instincts, but all his passes are a little inaccurate, so his turnover rate is sky high. i feel like he can't use his athleticism to really use his dribble as a weapon (i.e. he's really inexplosive w/ the ball).

anthony davis is seriously astonishing to watch. he's probably going to lead the league in dunks and blocks this year, he's just crazy. he's honestly just giant limbs and springs. he is constantly the the quickest player off the floor and he is just so smooth, even his jumper looks so great. mvp before long, seriously.

dallas's offense looks unstoppable. it's really fun to watch, sort of like the spurs, in that a lot of parts are interchangeable and you can never key in on any player. tons of player and ball movement. it's unfortunate that tyson chandler is definitely not as spry as he used to be...they missed a few alley-oops in the game i saw (against NOP) because nelson/ellis threw it a bit too high.
post #18484 of 27330
I don't know what the hell idfnl is talking about. Malone would still be a first round draft pick. Rodman would still barely be a second round pick. You mention those two like defense minded bigs who can't shoot don't get picked in the draft today. Embiid, randle, vonleh, Gordon all can't really shoot 2s much less 3s. In fact I'm pretty sure most the stretch fours today didn't shoot threes when they got drafted
Quote:
Originally Posted by wojt View Post

Well Dirk is the most famous perimeter oriented PF but not really the prototype at this stretch 4.... there were really many before him. They are shitloads of them now though. Still there are teams who play against the trend true to their personnel and are successful like indesertum mentioned, Grizz have to be the most oldschool team with loads of success. There is no one way to win a basketball game and that's the beauty of it.

No

I didn't mean prototype as in the first ever big man to shoot 3s. I meant it as the guy who made everybody see what a shooting big man could do for the team. Sure before there was Robinson and mills in the Clyde drexler era blazers and tony kukoc and Robert Horry but none of those players were game changeing the way dirk was.

After dirk everybody went for tall Europeans in draft picks cuz they thought tall Europeans was what made dirk great (just like after magic johnson every team kept picking tall guys with ball handling). After a few high profile busts they realized it wasn't that he was tall and European it was that he was tall and a good shooter.

1998 they moved the three line back. 1999 dirk breaks out in his sophomore year. Number of 3 shooting big men 6'9" or taller exploded after 1999. Before that there were at most 5 players a year 6' 9" or taller who shot at least 3 3s a game.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=single&type=totals&per_minute_base=36&lg_id=NBA&is_playoffs=N&year_min=&year_max=&franch_id=&season_start=1&season_end=-1&age_min=0&age_max=99&height_min=81&height_max=99&birth_country_is=Y&birth_country=&is_active=&is_hof=&is_as=&as_comp=gt&as_val=&pos_is_g=Y&pos_is_gf=Y&pos_is_f=Y&pos_is_fg=Y&pos_is_fc=Y&pos_is_c=Y&pos_is_cf=Y&qual=&c1stat=fg3a_per_g&c1comp=gt&c1val=3&c2stat=&c2comp=gt&c2val=&c3stat=&c3comp=gt&c3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&c5stat=&c5comp=gt&c6mult=1.0&c6stat=&order_by=season&order_by_asc=Y
post #18485 of 27330
Alright, smart guy. Gun to your head, what do you consider Kevin Durant?
post #18486 of 27330
Durant is one of the best shooting 3s of all time who can slide into the 4 spot with ease.

Really a stretch 4 means that the slow big guarding the 4 has to step out far to the perimeter opening up lanes. Thunders can use durant as a stretch 4 but they prefer to put him as a tall 3 with ibaka and a center.


Watched blazers warriors today. There were several terrible fucking calls. Like three times balls clearly went out of bounds off a warriors players on first look and replays but it went to warriors. Then the very last important out of bounds call in favor of warriors they get it right

Last 40 seconds was so painful. Some terribly lazy passes. Also that last Wesley Matthews pumping had me rolling.

http://vine.co/v/OODF7gQXIAY

Goddamn Blake can't keep his guy in front of him and so klay dunks on Lopez.

Then I checked fantasy and realized I never set my line for the day so instead of going 7-2 or 8-1 I went 5-4 frown.gif

Also all the damn warrior fans were Asians with big horn rim glasses
post #18487 of 27330
^agreed except against the spurs in conference finals. Dude got out muscled by diaw/Duncan/splitter
post #18488 of 27330
Quote:
Originally Posted by indesertum View Post

I don't know what the hell idfnl is talking about. Malone would still be a first round draft pick. Rodman would still barely be a second round pick. You mention those two like defense minded bigs who can't shoot don't get picked in the draft today. Embiid, randle, vonleh, Gordon all can't really shoot 2s much less 3s. In fact I'm pretty sure most the stretch fours today didn't shoot threes when they got drafted

I was just being a bit sarcastic. Malone shot a lot of mid-range. Given as how that type of 2 pointer is not in vogue among PFs, he would be less coveted as a draft choice. I had no idea what he looked like in college, so again, it was more a sarcastic reference to the stretch 4 obsession.
post #18489 of 27330
it was/is common for PF to have midrange game tbh these are not stretch fours to me, however these labels or even positions are often useless
post #18490 of 27330
Thread Starter 
Rodman was a beast in college, averaged mid-20s and high teen in rebound iirc.
post #18491 of 27330
Thread Starter 
Since ya'll are up on your stats and numbers and 3s lately, thought this might be of interest to some.
Quote:
Stats show that the 'short corner' is a myth

For years, the corner three has been known as a valuable shot. When actual location-based shooting metrics came into vogue, this wasn't just confirmed, it was emphatically so. The ideas for this are varied. I've asked players about it and gotten everything from "the angle of the shot" to "how the defense reacts." But the most popular idea has to do with the "short corner" principle. It's the shortest three-pointer on the floor at 22 feet.

But some research done by Nylon Calculus suggests that it's got nothing to do with the corner being "short" and more to do with the fact that you're more likely to be open from that spot.

(Disclosure: I'm the editor emeritus of the network of sites of which Nylon Calculus is a part of.)

Almost invariably these shots are described as the “shorter corner 3.” And it's true, the line is 22 feet from the basket in the corner, while it extends to 23 feet, 9 inches around the rest of the arc. However, that extra distance is not the primary determining factor in the increased accuracy of the shot. As Ian noted over the summer, field goal accuracy doesn't materially change at any distance between 5 and about 24 feet:



In fact across the NBA, corner 3s were made at a higher rate than long two point jumpers of the exact same distance. As mentioned above, those corner 3s were knocked down at right around 39 percent. Looking at some of the more granular shooting data released earlier this week, two pointers from 22 feet away or further were only converted at a 34.3 percent rate. While there are other explanations possible such as the the corner being an easier shooting background, a more likely explanation is that corner 3s are simply more open. This notion arose when I was examining who were the shooters deadliest from the corners when left wide open. It seemed that an unusually high proportion of players corner 3 attempts were completely uncontested. Given how important corner 3s are to the modern game, how could the shot be one of the least heavily contested in the game? But upon closer examination, it appears to be true. Here are the proportion of shots taken between 22 and 24 feet from the basket by the distance of the nearest defender:



via Geometry, Distance and Corner 3s.

That last chart is extremely important. 36 percent of all long twos have a defender at six feet or more away from the shooter, as opposed to 52.2 percent on the corner three. For coaches who have defended the mid-range two as some sort of religious totem, it's more bad evidence. Again, this isn't an "advanced" metric. It's simply, "you are more open and will make more shots from the corner three vs. the long two."

There are certainly other explantions for the higher percentage. Some players really do just prefer the angle. And just because players are more open from the corner doesn't mean that's a naturally-occurring phenomenon. You have to design plays for the corner like the best offense in the league, your San Antonios, Dallas' and the like do. But this is certainly compelling evidence and more reason to think that any conversation about how any shot at any time can be open isn't true.

From the actual numbers, you're more likely to have room for your shot from the corner.
post #18492 of 27330
^^

here is where I beat a dead horse....................

Again, that information is useful but the author writes with such an authoritative tone yet this is an incomplete picture. What were the shooting %'s of the players that take the corner 3's versus those that take the long 2's? What sets/plays are more typical to be run that leads to a corner 3 versus a long 2? Hoe many long 2's are broken plays/end of clock shots versus set plays for long 2's? Same questions for corner 3s. So his premise is, the short corner shot is a myth (although its not, it is shorter), corner 3s are more likely to be open (although he doesn't know why and he doesn't compare with how open other places on the court are) and he doesn't mention how many actual shots were taken from there versus other areas, if the corner 3 is 10-20% or whatever of a teams offense, it makes sense that most defenses would give that shot up and concentrate on the other 80% of the offense.

So, a lot of data that sounds intelligent leading to at best a flawed conclusion.
post #18493 of 27330
Quote:
Originally Posted by edmorel View Post

^^
What were the shooting %'s of the players that take the corner 3's versus those that take the long 2's? What sets/plays are more typical to be run that leads to a corner 3 versus a long 2? Hoe many long 2's are broken plays/end of clock shots versus set plays for long 2's? Same questions for corner 3s. So his premise is, the short corner shot is a myth (although its not, it is shorter), corner 3s are more likely to be open (although he doesn't know why and he doesn't compare with how open other places on the court are)


post #18494 of 27330
Ed - you can always argue it's incomplete and I used to have the same questions as you but you can look at the data for individuals and for the vast majority the shooting percentage doesn't drop much from 19-24 feet and a lot of players are still shooting too many 22 foot 2 point shots. There is readily available shot data for every player in the NBA where you can confirm or correct your opinion.

For example, Carmelo last season shot 56% within 3 feet, 33% from 4-9 ft, 46% from 10-15 feet, 44% 16+ ft 2s, 42% on 3's. He shot 33% on corner 3's. 31% of his shots were 16+ ft 2's and 23% were 3's. You tell me - as a Knicks fan do you wish he were able to take more 3's in exchange for fewer long 2's?
post #18495 of 27330
Someone should have told MJ, Dirk, Parker and Rip to shoot threeball instead because what they are doing is horribly inefficient
cmon dude long twos have their place in the game! It's closer, some people don't even have that good range(parker/rip) so they are better off shooting twos.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment, Culture, and Sports › NBA 2016-2017 Season Thread