Why won't Woodson MAKE SMOOVE quit shooting jumpshots!

[TheNorthCydeRises]

And the least efficient shot in the game is the mid-range jumper. It's actually more efficient to shoot 25% from deep (you average .75 points per possession) than it is to shoot 35% from mid-range (.7 ppp).

That's the biggest lie perpetuated in basketball. Because a 33% 3-point shooter is NOT considered to be a good shooter. But a 50% 2-point shooter is. Yet, if they took 12 shots, they'd get you the same amount of points. Give me the 6 - 12 two point shooter over the 4 - 12 three point shooter any ay of the week.

If Josh Smith shot 50% from.2-point range, he would be an UNSTOPPABLE offensive player. A guy like Dirk Nowitzki doesn't even shoot 50% on his 2-point jumpshot. But if Josh Smith shot 33% from 3, we'd complain like we do with Jamal and JJ, when they jack up a lot of threes. Both guys this year are mediocre shooters ( although tonight's performance may put both guys closer to 35% 3FG on the year.

Marvin is a prime example of a guy who used to be money shooter from midrange, but is only a mediocre at best shooter from 3.

Just about every star guard and wing in this league, is a mid-range assassin. If half of those guys would leave the 3 alone, or only take at most 2 a game, they'd be as great of shooters as you saw back in the 80s.

Edited January 7, 2010 by northcyde

[dlpin]

That's the biggest lie perpetuated in basketball. Because a 33% 3-point shooter is NOT considered to be a good shooter. But a 50% 2-point shooter is. Yet, if they took 12 shots, they'd get you the same amount of points. Give me the 6 - 12 two point shooter over the 4 - 12 three point shooter any ay of the week.

If Josh Smith shot 50% from.2-point range, he would be an UNSTOPPABLE offensive player. A guy like Dirk Nowitzki doesn't even shoot 50% on his 2-point jumpshot. But if Josh Smith shot 33% from 3, we'd complain like we do with Jamal and JJ, when they jack up a lot of threes. Both guys this year are mediocre shooters ( although tonight's performance may put both guys closer to 35% 3FG on the year.

Marvin is a prime example of a guy who used to be money shooter from midrange, but is only a mediocre at best shooter from 3.

Just about every star guard and wing in this league, is a mid-range assassin. If half of those guys would leave the 3 alone, or only take at most 2 a game, they'd be as great of shooters as you saw back in the 80s.

What in the world are you talking about? There is a reason why they developed stats like effective field goal % and true shooting %. What matters is points per possession, and a 33% 3 point shooter gives you the same as a 50% 2 point shooter.

Everyone who gives a damn about basketball cares about the effective fg%, not the actual one. People think Ray Allen is one of the best shooters ever not because of his career 45fg%, but because of his effective fg% of 52%. To know if the mid range jumper is useful you have to compare it to the 3 point accuracy.

In any case, I don't see how that is relevant to the Josh Smith discussion. He is just as bad in the long 2 as he is the the 3 point shot, the difference being that the long two gives you less points. His hit mid range jumpers at 28%, more or less the same as 3 point shots. In other words, that is actually worse than if only shot 3 pointers. He shouldnt shoot jumpshots at all.

Edited January 7, 2010 by dlpin

[TheNorthCydeRises]

What in the world are you talking about? There is a reason why they developed stats like effective field goal % and true shooting %. What matters is points per possession, and a 33% 3 point shooter gives you the same as a 50% 2 point shooter.

Everyone who gives a damn about basketball cares about the effective fg%, not the actual one. People think Ray Allen is one of the best shooters ever not because of his career 45fg%, but because of his effective fg% of 52%. To know if the mid range jumper is useful you have to compare it to the 3 point accuracy.

In any case, I don't see how that is relevant to the Josh Smith discussion. He is just as bad in the long 2 as he is the the 3 point shot, the difference being that the long two gives you less points. His hit mid range jumpers at 28%, more or less the same as 3 point shots. In other words, that is actually worse than if only shot 3 pointers. He shouldnt shoot jumpshots at all.

In regards to Josh Smith, I agree . . .he shouldn't be shooting ANY jumpers. 27% from 3 is bad, because he's maybe only going to hit 1 three every other game.

But I just like to throw around my disdain for the eFG%, because it lies. Like I said, you would never consider a 33% three point shooter a good shooter, while the 50% 2 point shooter would be praised as a great shooter. Same amount of points, yes, but not the same efficiency. And not the same psychological effect on a player.

If Joe Johnson shot nothing but threes against Boston, and went 4 - 12, Hawk fans would rip him to shreads for that performance. Conversely, if he went 6 - 12 but shot nothing but 2's, he'd be looked at as having a good game.

Why?

Because missed shots are missed shots, in the grand scheme of things. Especially when you talk about jumpers. Missed shots means potential extra possessions for your opponent without you scoring, unless you secure an offensive rebound. Orlando tonight was 9 - 31 from three ( 29% ). That's 27 points made, but 22 missed shots from 3.

From a 2 point perspective, the eFG would tell you that a 9 - 31 performance that generated 27 points, would be equivalent to a 14/31 ( 45% ) performance that generated 28 points. The difference is that the 2 point shooting team missed 17 shots . . . 5 less than the 3 point group. That's 5 less potential possessions that you're giving your opponent.

Look at Jamal Crawford this year. Did you know that he's shooting 52.5% on his 2-point shots? That's 9th in the league amongst guards. That percentage is better than Kobe, Joe Johnson, Brandon Roy, and Jason Terry.

But what drives people crazy about Crawford? His erratic 3-point shooting. And it's due to the fact that he takes ill-advised three's. Those ill-advised threes leads to those 2 - 10 . . . 4 - 14 nights that he has. Same with JJ, for that matter.

Jamal would be a deadly midrange shooter, if he did that a little more, than shoot threes. Unfortunately, 36% of his shots are three pointers, compared with 26% of JJ's shots being threes. He and JJ are getting better. But at 35% 3FG, they're not setting the world on fire from that range. At least JJ will start driving, or taking midrange shots, when his 3-ball isn't falling. Crawford will keep gunning away.

Damn .. . it may be time for me to do another Northcyde JumpShot Index.

Edited January 7, 2010 by northcyde

[dlpin]

In regards to Josh Smith, I agree . . .he shouldn't be shooting ANY jumpers. 27% from 3 is bad, because he's maybe only going to hit 1 three every other game.

But I just like to throw around my disdain for the eFG%, because it lies. Like I said, you would never consider a 33% three point shooter a good shooter, while the 50% 2 point shooter would be praised as a great shooter. Same amount of points, yes, but not the same efficiency. And not the same psychological effect on a player.

If Joe Johnson shot nothing but threes against Boston, and went 4 - 12, Hawk fans would rip him to shreads for that performance. Conversely, if he went 6 - 12 but shot nothing but 2's, he'd be looked at as having a good game.

Why?

Because missed shots are missed shots, in the grand scheme of things. Especially when you talk about jumpers. Missed shots means potential extra possessions for your opponent without you scoring, unless you secure an offensive rebound. Orlando tonight was 9 - 31 from three ( 29% ). That's 27 points made, but 22 missed shots from 3.

From a 2 point perspective, the eFG would tell you that a 9 - 31 performance that generated 27 points, would be equivalent to a 14/31 ( 45% ) performance that generated 28 points. The difference is that the 2 point shooting team missed 17 shots . . . 5 less than the 3 point group. That's 5 less potential possessions that you're giving your opponent.

Look at Jamal Crawford this year. Did you know that he's shooting 52.5% on his 2-point shots? That's 9th in the league amongst guards. That percentage is better than Kobe, Joe Johnson, Brandon Roy, and Jason Terry.

But what drives people crazy about Crawford? His erratic 3-point shooting. And it's due to the fact that he takes ill-advised three's. Those ill-advised threes leads to those 2 - 10 . . . 4 - 14 nights that he has. Same with JJ, for that matter.

Jamal would be a deadly midrange shooter, if he did that a little more, than shoot threes. Unfortunately, 36% of his shots are three pointers, compared with 26% of JJ's shots being threes. He and JJ are getting better. But at 35% 3FG, they're not setting the world on fire from that range. At least JJ will start driving, or taking midrange shots, when his 3-ball isn't falling. Crawford will keep gunning away.

Damn .. . it may be time for me to do another Northcyde JumpShot Index.

That makes absolutely no sense. If a player goes 4 for 12 from 3 points, it means that the opposing team get the ball 4 guaranteed times (after all, after each score the other team has possession) and there are 8 rebounds up for grabs. If a player goes 6 for 12 from 2s, it means that the opposing team gets the ball a guaranteed 6 times, and there is only 6 opportunities for offensive rebounds.

That is what you are ignoring. A made shot is an automatic possession for the other team. A miss might be an offensive rebound.

To use the current league example: the league average offensive rebounding rate is 26.7%. If a team gets the average number of offensive rebounds, here is what happens: if they go 4 for 12 from 3 point, they score 12 points, and they have a shot at 8 rebounds. If they get the average 26.7% of rebounds, they will get on average 2.136 offensive rebounds. If they go 6 for 12 on 2s, they have a shot at 6 rebounds, and at the league average rebound rate, that means just 1.6 offensive rebounds, and therefore extra possessions.

In fact, if you read Hollinger's article about the hawks, that is precisely the point that he made: the hawks don't shoot a high percentage, but they get more possessions because they get more offensive rebounds.

So when you say "Missed shots means potential extra possessions for your opponent without you scoring, unless you secure an offensive rebound." you have it exactly backwards. To use a different, rounder number to make things clearer: if a player goes 9 for 9 from 2 points, his team will get 18 points, but the other team will get 9 possessions guaranteed. If a player goes 6 for 9 from 3 point, his team will get 18 points, but the other team will only get 6 guaranteed possessions, and 3 rebounds, which would otherwise be guaranteed possessions, would be up for grabs as potential offensive rebounds.

And that is the importance of the effective field goal statistic: it allows you to compare apples to apples. And that is why virtually every specialized site, every stats person and every columnist will highlight the importance of eFG% as opposed to pure fg%.

[Admin]

Regarding what Woody can and cannot make the players do I was forced to listen to the 1st Cavs game on radio due to blackout restrictions and if you remember that just before the of a quarter (or maybe half?) Lebron scored on a play at the last second and I don't know if they mentioned this on the TV broadcast but apparently Woody and his assistants were YELLING to the players on the court that we had a foul to give, which was only shortly after a team timeout in which all of the players were told that we had a foul to give, and yet NONE of the players fouled Lebron or anyone else and he got an easy basket. Looking at this example and other examples of the past few years makes me wonder what else the players fail to do that they're told to do by the coaches and would replacing the coaching staff fix those issues? Are the players just too young and immature and that's why they have mental lapses or are they purposely ignoring the coaches? I tend to think it's an issue of maturity and that having a different coach wouldn't change that, although the experience of seeing their coach fired and having someone new brought in might force them to focus a little more.

[AHF]

That makes absolutely no sense. If a player goes 4 for 12 from 3 points, it means that the opposing team get the ball 4 guaranteed times (after all, after each score the other team has possession) and there are 8 rebounds up for grabs. If a player goes 6 for 12 from 2s, it means that the opposing team gets the ball a guaranteed 6 times, and there is only 6 opportunities for offensive rebounds.

That is what you are ignoring. A made shot is an automatic possession for the other team. A miss might be an offensive rebound.

To use the current league example: the league average offensive rebounding rate is 26.7%. If a team gets the average number of offensive rebounds, here is what happens: if they go 4 for 12 from 3 point, they score 12 points, and they have a shot at 8 rebounds. If they get the average 26.7% of rebounds, they will get on average 2.136 offensive rebounds. If they go 6 for 12 on 2s, they have a shot at 6 rebounds, and at the league average rebound rate, that means just 1.6 offensive rebounds, and therefore extra possessions.

In fact, if you read Hollinger's article about the hawks, that is precisely the point that he made: the hawks don't shoot a high percentage, but they get more possessions because they get more offensive rebounds.

So when you say "Missed shots means potential extra possessions for your opponent without you scoring, unless you secure an offensive rebound." you have it exactly backwards. To use a different, rounder number to make things clearer: if a player goes 9 for 9 from 2 points, his team will get 18 points, but the other team will get 9 possessions guaranteed. If a player goes 6 for 9 from 3 point, his team will get 18 points, but the other team will only get 6 guaranteed possessions, and 3 rebounds, which would otherwise be guaranteed possessions, would be up for grabs as potential offensive rebounds.

And that is the importance of the effective field goal statistic: it allows you to compare apples to apples. And that is why virtually every specialized site, every stats person and every columnist will highlight the importance of eFG% as opposed to pure fg%.

I think this is all right, but one thing to add is that the farther away from the basket that Josh Smith gets the less likely he is to be a factor on the offensive boards (and he needs to be a factor on the offensive boards for us). So a 4-12 from 3pt range may be worse than a 6-12 from 2pt range if it means Smith is spending significantly more time outside the 3pt arc and taking himself out of his rebounding responsibilities.

[dlpin]

I think this is all right, but one thing to add is that the farther away from the basket that Josh Smith gets the less likely he is to be a factor on the offensive boards (and he needs to be a factor on the offensive boards for us). So a 4-12 from 3pt range may be worse than a 6-12 from 2pt range if it means Smith is spending significantly more time outside the 3pt arc and taking himself out of his rebounding responsibilities.

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%.

[niremetal]

That makes absolutely no sense. If a player goes 4 for 12 from 3 points, it means that the opposing team get the ball 4 guaranteed times (after all, after each score the other team has possession) and there are 8 rebounds up for grabs. If a player goes 6 for 12 from 2s, it means that the opposing team gets the ball a guaranteed 6 times, and there is only 6 opportunities for offensive rebounds.

That is what you are ignoring. A made shot is an automatic possession for the other team. A miss might be an offensive rebound.

To use the current league example: the league average offensive rebounding rate is 26.7%. If a team gets the average number of offensive rebounds, here is what happens: if they go 4 for 12 from 3 point, they score 12 points, and they have a shot at 8 rebounds. If they get the average 26.7% of rebounds, they will get on average 2.136 offensive rebounds. If they go 6 for 12 on 2s, they have a shot at 6 rebounds, and at the league average rebound rate, that means just 1.6 offensive rebounds, and therefore extra possessions.

In fact, if you read Hollinger's article about the hawks, that is precisely the point that he made: the hawks don't shoot a high percentage, but they get more possessions because they get more offensive rebounds.

So when you say "Missed shots means potential extra possessions for your opponent without you scoring, unless you secure an offensive rebound." you have it exactly backwards. To use a different, rounder number to make things clearer: if a player goes 9 for 9 from 2 points, his team will get 18 points, but the other team will get 9 possessions guaranteed. If a player goes 6 for 9 from 3 point, his team will get 18 points, but the other team will only get 6 guaranteed possessions, and 3 rebounds, which would otherwise be guaranteed possessions, would be up for grabs as potential offensive rebounds.

And that is the importance of the effective field goal statistic: it allows you to compare apples to apples. And that is why virtually every specialized site, every stats person and every columnist will highlight the importance of eFG% as opposed to pure fg%.

You explained it perfectly, but Northcyde won't care. Or he'll try to find some way to say that 2+2 is not, in fact, 4.

[AHF]

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%.

I am on board with Smith not shooting jumpers at all, I am just pointing out there is an additional cost to long-range shooting for guys who are expected to impact the offensive rebounding that is not captured in the efg% metric.

[Buzzard]

I am on board with Smith not shooting jumpers at all, I am just pointing out there is an additional cost to long-range shooting for guys who are expected to impact the offensive rebounding that is not captured in the efg% metric.

Exactly and this thread is about Smoove. His approach to playing his position is what leads to his (our) lack of rebounding.

[dlpin]

I am on board with Smith not shooting jumpers at all, I am just pointing out there is an additional cost to long-range shooting for guys who are expected to impact the offensive rebounding that is not captured in the efg% metric.

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.

[AHF]

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.

Agreed. But mid-range jumpers may leave Smoove in range to crash the boards.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

You explained it perfectly, but Northcyde won't care. Or he'll try to find some way to say that 2+2 is not, in fact, 4.

Oh no, he explained it right. But my point still stands as well. Tell me guys . . why is a 33% 3-point shooter looked down upon, but a 50% 2-point shooter praised? If the efficiency is the same, why is one looked down upon?

[Buzzard]

Oh no, he explained it right. But my point still stands as well. Tell me guys . . why is a 33% 3-point shooter looked down upon, but a 50% 2-point shooter praised? If the efficiency is the same, why is one looked down upon?

I guess in your world the guy who shoots 33% from 3pt range cannot be the same guy who shoots 50% from 2pt range? I mean if you look down on the 33% shooter then he cannot also be the 50% shooter that you look up to? Or I am missing something and this is not what you are saying?

For me most 50% FG shooters are bigs and I think its not so much they are praised for that%; as much as they would be run out of town if they shot worse than that. If you are inside six ft when you first touch the ball and 6'9" inches or taller, 50% is expected I would think and not really praised.

[niremetal]

Oh no, he explained it right. But my point still stands as well. Tell me guys . . why is a 33% 3-point shooter looked down upon, but a 50% 2-point shooter praised? If the efficiency is the same, why is one looked down upon?

I love you how say that they are looked down upon as if your opinion is SO obviously right that it is held almost universally. Clearly, it is not. I do not look down on a 33% 3 point shooter. Neither do a lot of people around here. Neither do a lot of the basketball writers and other lay "experts." In fact, I'd wager that neither do most GMs in the league today. And even if I were to grant that most fans "look down on" a 33% 3-point shooter compared to a 50% 2-point shooter (and I don't grant that they do - it doesn't take more than a quick look at the stat sheets to realize that a 50% 2 point shooter is not that impressive; the league average is 49%), that doesn't mean a damned thing. As in all sports, the closer you get to the people in charge of making decisions, the more you realize that the views held by the loudest fans are not necessarily shared by those who actually know what the hell they're talking about.

Edited January 8, 2010 by niremetal

[Buzzard]

I love you how say that they are looked down upon as if your opinion is SO obviously right that it is held almost universally. Clearly, it is not. I do not look down on a 33% 3 point shooter. Neither do a lot of people around here. Neither do a lot of the basketball writers and other lay "experts." In fact, I'd wager that neither do most GMs in the league today. And even if I were to grant that most fans "look down on" a 33% 3-point shooter, that doesn't mean a damned thing. As in all sports, the closer you get to the people in charge of making decisions, the more you realize that the views held by the loudest fans are not necessarily shared by those who actually know what the hell they're talking about.

Yes my point also concerning the 50% being looked up to. 50% is expected from bigs. 33% is probably average concerning 3 pt shooting as well. This thread is about Smoove; and 33% from anywhere outside of 17 ft has no business in the same thread with him much less the same sentence. How did we get sidetracked on this. Has Woody told Smoove to keep shooting jumpers until you can hit 33%?

[niremetal]

I love you how say that they are looked down upon as if your opinion is SO obviously right that it is held almost universally. Clearly, it is not. I do not look down on a 33% 3 point shooter. Neither do a lot of people around here. Neither do a lot of the basketball writers and other lay "experts." In fact, I'd wager that neither do most GMs in the league today. And even if I were to grant that most fans "look down on" a 33% 3-point shooter compared to a 50% 2-point shooter (and I don't grant that they do - it doesn't take more than a quick look at the stat sheets to realize that a 50% 2 point shooter is not that impressive; the league average is 49%), that doesn't mean a damned thing. As in all sports, the closer you get to the people in charge of making decisions, the more you realize that the views held by the loudest fans are not necessarily shared by those who actually know what the hell they're talking about.

As if on cue...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703436504574640321755710720.html

The stat pointed to a simple truth that many league executives swear by today: a cheap sharp shooter who makes 33% of his three-point shots (a pretty common benchmark) is just as valuable as a big man who makes half of his two-point shots—a feat that isn't accomplished nearly as often.

That's from yesterday's Wall Street Journal.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Agreed. But mid-range jumpers may leave Smoove in range to crash the boards.

I agree with this as well. Smoove will be in much better position to rebound his own miss, if he were taking a 16 foot jumper, compared to a 24 foot jumper.

Overall though, I just have a huge problem with the notion that the midrange shot is the most useless shot in basketball. If anything, it's the most underutilized shot in basketball. You have a ton of bad shooters just jacking up 3 point shots, just for the hell of it. Those guys would be much better off just taking the more makeable 2 point shot.

In Smoove's case, he shouldn't take any jumper, because it's such a low percentage shot for him, regardless of where he shoots it. Instead, I like him when he embraces the playmaker role. He may be our best passer on the team in regards to vision.

[dlpin]

I agree with this as well. Smoove will be in much better position to rebound his own miss, if he were taking a 16 foot jumper, compared to a 24 foot jumper.

Overall though, I just have a huge problem with the notion that the midrange shot is the most useless shot in basketball. If anything, it's the most underutilized shot in basketball. You have a ton of bad shooters just jacking up 3 point shots, just for the hell of it. Those guys would be much better off just taking the more makeable 2 point shot.

In Smoove's case, he shouldn't take any jumper, because it's such a low percentage shot for him, regardless of where he shoots it. Instead, I like him when he embraces the playmaker role. He may be our best passer on the team in regards to vision.

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.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

As if on cue...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703436504574640321755710720.html

That's from yesterday's Wall Street Journal.

LOL @ calling a 33% 3 point shooter "a sharpshooter". If the shooting in the NBA is at a point in which GMs are calling 33% 3FG guys "sharpshooters", then it just proves just how much good shootng has disappeared in the NBA. You did prove that people may not think that 33% is bad though, so I have to give you props on that.

So let me ask you this? Would you add a 33% 3FG shooter to the Hawks lineup, as opposed to a 6-11 guy who could shoot 50% FG?

LOL . . in other words, would you bring Salim Stoudamire back?