dlpin

to be clear on the rules for the reserves: the coaches have to pick 2 guards (as listed in the ballot) 2 forwards, 1 center, and 2 "wild cards" (any position). If a player selected can't play because of injury, then David Stern picks the replacement from whichever position he wants. so after the starting 5 (wade, iverson, lebron, kg, howard) coaches pick: so for the guards, 2 of the following will be picked by the coaches: rondo, carter, JJ, nelson, mo williams, rose for the forwards, 2 of the following: Bosh, Pierce, Butler, Granger, Lee, Smoove, Iggy, Deng For the center, 1 of the following: Bargnani, Bogut, Horford (it doesn't matter if people see him as a forward, on the ballot he is a center), Shaq And then the 2 most voted who didnt get in will be the 2 wildcards Which, to me, means Horford has a much bigger chance of being in the all star game than Josh Smith Why? Because he is a lot more likely to win the coach vote for center than josh smith is to win the vote for the wildcard. Bosh and Pierce are almost locks to win the vote for back up forward, so smith would have to be a "wildcard position" competing in votes against players of all positions. Considering it is likely that 2 of 3 the three among rondo, mo willams, and jameer nelson will not make it as the top two guards, I bet they will get a lot of votes for the "wild card" position, making it very difficult for smoove to make it, even if he is the 3rd most voted forward among the coaches. If KG doesn't play, Stern has tended to pick big names over good players, and Im sure he would pick shaq or another big name, like Ray Allen.

If you have comcast, sports south showed the game with 'Nique As far as Tommy goes, I don't think there is a single announcer in the whole league that is as popular with his own fan base as Tommy is, so he is not going anywhere

I've touched on this issue before, and I really don't get why some of you are so incredibly concerned if a team thinks of you as rivals. First of all, on the issue of respect:, do you really expect any basketball player on a contending team will ever come out and say "yes, we fear them a lot. I hope to god I never play them again?" Second, on the issue of a rivalry: why does it matter? And what is your definition of a rival? Because if one tough playoff series and one season of regular season domination are enough to make something a rivalry, especially when the teams aren't even in the same division, then Boston, based only on the last 10 years, would have the following rivals: - Lakers (finals, swept the celtics in the regular season last year) - Orlando (eliminated the celtics in a 7 games series last year) - Bulls (toughest 1st round series ever last year) - Cleveland (7 game series in 08, race for top seed last year) - Detroit (ecf in 08, only team to win in boston in 08, another series in 02) - Pacers (3 straight years of playoff matchups between 03 and 05, with the pacers winning twice, one of them in a game 7 in boston) - Nets(eliminated the celtics two straight years in 02 and 03) In other words, if the hawks meet the criteria to be a Boston "rival," then about 1/3 of the eastern conference also meet that criteria. Let me put it this way: how many of you think miami is a serious rival to the hawks? how many of you fear the heat?

In a day mark mgwire admits to steroids, it would take 'Nique suiting up and playing in order to draw attention away from that.

the likelihood of the celtics and the hawks facing each other in the playoffs in the second round is almost non-existent. The two teams are more likely to finish 3rd and 4th than they are of finishing 1 and 4 or 2 and 3. The celtics won't be the first seed, and while the hawks have a shot at finishing ahead of the magic, I don't think the celtics do.

How is Boston any worse than cleveland and orlando? Half a game behind the cavs after all those injuries is not bad. And if you think that because of the way the hawks match up against the celtics, a healthy celtics team has also shown to be a huge match up problem for the magic and the cavs...

Just as a reminder, the regular season has little to no bearing on how things go in the playoffs.In 08 Boston beat the hawks three straight times, all by double digits, and then was taken by that same hawks to 7 games. In 09, the hawks had a 3-1 record against the heat, and would have split the series against the cavs if not for the refs, and was taken by the heat to 7 games and was completely destroyed by the cavs. The magic last year beat LA twice in the regular season and was dismantled in the finals. The rockets lost all four regular season games against the lakers by a combined 42 points and then took them to 7. And in 07 cleveland swept the regular season and was swept in the finals. And that is even more important when only half the series has been played. Last year the celtics won the first two games against orlando by double digits. Point being, whatever you think it is based on the regular season (or worse, half a regular season), the playoffs are a whole different animal. It is all about being hot and healthy, so trying to get a certain seeding because it is supposedly easier is simply non-sense.

As a fan of the hawks, criticism of the hawks bothers you more than criticism of the celtics. The criticism was there, you just didn't pay too much attention to it.

He didn't say that the hawks were not a top 4 team in the east. He said the hawks were not as good as the top 4 teams in the NBA, which is a completely different thing. I know it sucks when someone disses your team just as it is winning a game against a top opponent, but personally I prefer commentators like that than the ones who always treat whatever team is playing as the best and flawless.

Ask him if the long jumper is better. The ideal alternative to the three is going to the rim, not shooting a long jumper.

How can you not understand that eFG% is simply a measure of how many points you get per shot, and as such it is a better measure of fg%? In fact, eFG x2 = points per shot. I have never, ever, seen someone so stubborn. It is not "unfair" to boost three point shooting fg% simply becaue 3>2. How can you not get that 3>2? You know why Jordan developed the mid range jumper? Because teams did absolutely everything to keep him out of the paint. That is also why he developed a 3 point shot. Great players have to develop a good jumper not because the jumper is the best shot, but it's because it is the worst, and as such defenses tend to leave players open to shoot them. Again, look at the chart with the points by region. Look at the chart with the rebounds by region. And it has nothing to do with SF and PF shooting from there. Just read the 82games article. I give up. I have never seen someone so stubborn in the face of overwhelming evidence. To sum up again: - Mid to long range 2-pt jumpers have a lower efg% than close up shots and 3 points - mid to long range 2-point jumpers are responsible for less points per game than close up shots and 3 points - mid to long range 2- point jumpers have a lower "points per shot" and "points per possession" than close up shots and 3 point shots - mid to long range 2 point jumpers lead to less offensive rebounds than close up shots and three point shots - mid to long range 2 point shots are less used than close us shots and 3 point shots combined

Oh, and from the same website: http://www.countthebasket.com/blog/ Where Players Score Points:

By the way, here's the final nail in the coffin of the long 2: http://www.countthebasket.com/blog/2008/03/29/rebounding-by-shot-location/ Share of offensive rebounds by position where the original shot was taken: http://www.82games.com/rebounds.htm The long 2 leads to the least amount of offensive rebounds. To quote the two articles: "longer three-point jumpers are rebounded by the offense more often than shorter two-point jumpers, but shots in the paint are rebounded by the offense even more frequently than three-pointers" "So no shock here, but the "in the paint" shots lead to more contested rebounds, and the highest offensive rebound rate, with three-pointers being close, but those pesky two-point jumpers from outside, which we've picked on in other articles, are once again the least effective for the offensive team in terms of producing second chances! " So to recap: - Mid to long range 2-pt jumpers have a lower efg% than close up shots and 3 points - mid to long range 2-point jumpers are responsible for less points per game than close up shots and 3 points - mid to long range 2- point jumpers have a lower "points per shot" and "points per possession" than close up shots and 3 point shots - mid to long range 2 point jumpers lead to less offensive rebounds than close up shots and three point shots - mid to long range 2 point shots are less used than close us shots and 3 point shots combined The ONLY reason to shoot a long 2 is that defenses focus more on close up shots and 3 point shots. I.e., an uncontested long 2 is sometimes better than a contested 3. But even then its not always.

I know the best of all time is Jordan. I was asking who he was talking about when he said the greatest player IN the game, as in right now. Don't get me wrong, to be a complete player you have to have a deadly mid range jumper. But the point remains that mid range jumpers are still worse than close up shots and 3 pointers. Jordan and Bird used a lot of mid range jumpers because people did everything, absolutely everything to keep them off the paint and off the 3 point line. That is the point: players settle for the long 2 only when the lay up and the 3 point shot are contested, and those are more contested because they are, essentially, better shots. Between an uncontested lay up, an uncontested 3, and an uncontested long 2, the uncontested long 2 is the worst shot.

Which "greatest player in the game" are you talking about? Kobe? Points per game: free throw line: 6.7 points a game (and you can bet he is getting fouled at the rim) closer than 10 feet + 3 point line: 9.4 points a game + 3.6 points a game= 13 points a game 10 feet-23 feet: 10.2 points a game so of his 30 points a game, only 10 come from the mid range. He "kills" people at the rim, at the free throw line and at the 3 point line Lebron? Points per game free throw line: 7.1 points a game closer than 10 feet + 3 point line: 12 points + 5.1 points a game= 17.1 points a game 10 feet- 23 feet: 5.7 points a game Unfortunately we don't that same level of detailed data for Jordan. But the point remains: the only reason people shoot long range 2s is because defenses focus on penetration and 3 point shots. If what you are saying was true, defenses would let players freely shoot threes or drive to the rim. You still haven't answered that. If the long 2 is so good, why do defenses focus on the 3 point line and on the paint?

The fact that you refuse to understand the math behind efg% is baffling to me. You don't want to understand the math behind it? Great, I give up on that area. Let's look at something else then, how about average points per shot taken? Jamal Crawford: 1 point per shot taken from 10-15ft 0.9 points per shot taken from 16-23 ft 1.026 points per shot taken from 3 points JJ: 0.984 points per shot taken from 10-15ft 0.78 points per shot taken from 16-23ft 1.02 points per shot taken from 3 pt The fact is that no matter how you slice it, the 3 point shot is better than the long 2. You still refuse to answer this, but why do you think that defenses worry about penetration and 3 point shots more than they do long 2s? And I really cannot fathom how you can't understand that shooting 35% from 3 is better than shooting 46% from 2...

No, because for Josh Smith last year,his efg% at the rim was 69%. In other words, he should always be going to the rim. Now, if the choice is between shooting a 3 and shooting a long 2, he should shoot the three. His fg% for long 2s was 34% last year. So, for Josh Smith: going to the rim>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>3 point shot>long 2 point shot.

Too bad that the game isn't made only of last second shots to score 1 point, but of several shots to score several points. And in any case, in a last second situation down by one the best shot is a lay up or dunk. You only take the long two if the defense blocks you from doing that.

How can you not understand the math? How can you not understand that a 3 point shot is worth more than a 2 point shot? How can you not understand that shooting 35% from three points gives you the same points per possession as shooting 52.5% from 2 points?

You are simply wrong on almost all accounts, which normally is a very hard thing to do. Niremetal already took care of the JJ issue: http://hoopdata.com/player.aspx?name=Joe%20Johnson Kobe http://hoopdata.com/player.aspx?name=Kobe%20Bryant Dirk: http://hoopdata.com/player.aspx?name=Dirk%20Nowitzki Roy: http://hoopdata.com/player.aspx?name=Brandon%20Roy Williams: http://hoopdata.com/player.aspx?name=Deron%20Williams Melo: http://hoopdata.com/player.aspx?name=Carmelo%20Anthony Zach Randolph http://www.hoopdata.com/player.aspx?name=Zach%20Randolph The ONLY players of all of these to have a better efg% from mid range jumpers than 3 point are Kobe (but it is only barely so and he is still much better at the rim) and Randolph (but only this season). And the only player to score a majority of his fgs from mid range jumpers is Dirk. Everyone else is better and scores more at either the rim or 3 point. You say that Zach Randolph is a "midrange monster?" The guy hits 28.9% from 10 to 15ft and 46% from 16-23 feet. Melo a lethal scorer based on his "mid range prowess?" The guy hits 1.1 shots per game from 10-15ft, and 2.8 from 16-23 (7.8ppg) . Meanwhile he hits 5.1 shots at the rim, and 0.8 from the three point line (12.6 ppg). And if you still refuse to see this, here's the league averages: http://hoopdata.com/shotstats.aspx NBA average: at the rim: 60.3efg% 3.2 points <10 feet: 44.1 efg% 0.8 points 10-15ft: 40efg%, 0.6 points 16-23ft: 39.7 efg%, 1.6 points 3 point: 52.4efg%, 2.1 points Your points have been shown completely false by the data available. If this isn't enough to convince you, I don't know what is. The data shows you are wrong, the way NBA teams play defense shows you are wrong, every columnist thinks you are wrong. There is a reason good defensive teams emphasize preventing penetration and 3 point shots.

Not only are coaches extremely important in the NBA, assistant coaches are also very important. Just look at Thibodeau with the celtics: the man is a defensive genius. But it is not just about being a good coach, it is also about being a good fit. Doc was an awful coach when the celtics were young and bad. He does a terrible job with young talent and he is not very good with the Xs and Os. I used to hate him as a celtics coach. But since the Allen and KG acquisitions he has become the best possible coach for the celtics. Why? Fit. He is a player's coach who is able to communicate with them and make them see things his way. That is perfect for a veteran team. Very few coaches would be able to successfully make Pierce, Allen, KG and Sheed accept smaller roles. And because of Thibodeau he doesnt need to worry about the Xs and Os. And just to throw out a few examples of how important coaching skill and fit are: in 2001 the celtics were 12-22 under pitino. He quit and with the exact same players Obrien finished the season 24-24, going from a 35% to a 50% team overnight. The next season the celtics were 49-33 and went to the ECF. Sloan is another good example. In one of the smallest markets in the league, with almost no lottery picks, the guy has been consistently excellent for two decades, and the only reason he didnt win a couple of championships is that he was unlucky enough to face michael jordan in the finals.

No, it is in fact the worst shot in basketball. Close up shots are high percentage and often lead to free throws. 3 point shots are lower percentage, but worth more. Long 2s rarely lead to free throws and are just as low percentage. There is a reason why coaches worry first about penetration, second about 3 point shots, and only last about long 2s. And if you don't believe me: http://www.82games.com/comm51.htm And here is the final proof: http://82games.com/nbashots.htm Just to point out the important part, using data from 2003-2004 FG% 0-5ft - 57% 06--11ft- 37% 12-17ft- 38% 18-line- 39% 3 point shots - 35% in eFG% terms: 0-5ft - 57% 06--11ft- 37% 12-17ft- 38% 18-line- 39% 3 point shots - 52% There is a reason every team defense focuses on penetration and 3 point shots first.

I understand that. But his argument was that the long 2 is better than the 3. A long 2 has the same issue of moving a PF away from the boards.

I was not talking about Smith, because he simply shouldnt be shooting jumpers at all. He is under 30% from both the long 2 range and the 3 range. I was talking about the idea that eFG% doesn't matter, or that 2 point shots are always more valuable than 3 point shots. What matters is precisely the efg%.