re: Zach Lowe on Davis

brmark70816 is convinced that Anderson is over-valued, we have too many guards and our bench is overpaid. Maybe I should just sell my tickets.

quote:

---

brmark70816 is convinced that Anderson is over-valued, we have too many guards and our bench is overpaid. Maybe I should just sell my tickets

---

Of course not. I'll get to as many games as I can as well. I still love watching them play. They are just a work in progress and I see lots of places they can improve or should just totally go a different direction.

I don't like Anderson's game. It just doesn't make sense to me and it just blows my mind that so many people praise him, for something that isn't that big of a deal (shooting tons of 3s for an average %). If he actually developed a post game, drove to the basket and hustled on defense, he'd be a great player. But he is given a pass on all of those and that irks me. Especially when so many people on here bash on Vasquez for bad defense. It's over my head I guess..

Zach lowe's on davis? He gay or somethin?

Get him off

quote:

---

I don't like Anderson's game. It just doesn't make sense to me and it just blows my mind that so many people praise him, for something that isn't that big of a deal (shooting tons of 3s for an average %).

---

But see, I don't think last season is representative of what Anderson can do or what he brings to the team. This roster, imo, will allow him more one on one or uncontested shots and will take some of the defensive pressure off of him. His success in Orlando was not just because of Howard.

quote:

---

Although, I suppose, it doesn't hurt with some fans.

---

I thought it but didn't say it because I didn't want this thread to go off the rails. But I really think the biggest reason is the 3 ball. Lack of pigmentation isn't what made Peja heads exciting.

quote:

---

many people praise him, for something that isn't that big of a deal (shooting tons of 3s for an average %

---

What? Did you click the link I posted? What Anderson does is a very big deal.

You dont like stretch 4s. Thats fine. But to say what Anderson does isnt a big deal is willfull denial of the facts.

quote:

---

but what are you trying to show?

---

Anderson is a rare combination of volume and accuracy from 3. When you are on a list with Peja and Ray Allen, you are doing something very right as a shooter.

quote:

---

role players that had semi-big years. 

---

Anderson is a role player. He is not a star. He will most likely never make an All-Star team. He is also an elite offensive weapon (his Off Eff stats bare this out). He is a 3rd or 4th best player on a good team. And he is not untradeable.

quote:

---

But it would just make him a role player and it shouldn't be used as a primary offensive objective

---

I dont think he is a primary option on offense. But his volume and accuracy make him an ideal fit in any offense and a guy that defenses have to gameplan for.

Making three 3s a night is merely average for him.

quote:

---

My point is, you found something that works that includes Anderson

---

Favored is not the right word at all. Im trying to show you that what he has done the last 2 years is something very few players have ever done. Hell, I cheated him out of .4 3PA/game. Why wouldn't I use his stats as a base to see how he stacks up?

quote:

---

It's just a quirk

---

I present you with data. You say the data is favoring Anderson and the results are random. I know its the internet, but I thought we were at least trying to have a real discussion.

The only guy on the list not known as a sharpshooter is Dee Brown. Every other guy has a reputation as being a very good 3pt shooter.

The larger point is that this production isnt frequent around the league and it isnt random for Anderson. Two years in a row and a repeater with Allen, Peja, and Rashard Lewis.

quote:

---

But he is one of, if not the worst FA signings in NO history.

---

That has no bearing on Anderson's skill or value.

quote:

---

But it shouldn't be 7 a game. They should work the ball to the basket more

---

Couple of things I disagree with here:

Andersons accuracy means he should take those threes. Say he takes 10 and hits 3.8, thats 11.4 total points. To get the same production from 2s, he has to shoot 57%. TS%, not FG% is the important number. And Anderson's TS% has always been very good.

Anderson stationed at the arc and able to hit them all day opens everything up for the team. He is a floor spacer. You cant cheat off of him to clog the lane for Davis, Holiday, Evans, Gordon. If you do, he will torch you.

Teams want him off the arc, why help them out? There is a difference between developing counter moves and moving away from a strength.

quote:

---

he averages under 3, so that doesn't make mathematical sense

---

2.5 3s is merely an average night. Some nights are worse, some nights are better. But that production worries defenses much more than any other player on last years team other than Gordon.

The whole thing is a bit silly. No one who knows basketball thinks Anderson is a franchise changer. Not every.NBA player is a complete package. And that is fine.

But Anderson has real value and he has an elite offensive skill set. He is one of the most efficient offensive players in the NBA. He had a down year in NO and was still very, very good on offense.

Is he a role player? Yes. So what? His contract is fair and he is a very attractive asset because of his on court production- however lacking you may find it

The part of Anderson's game that brmark seems to not be factoring into things is the space he creates. Maybe with the new camera system they'll come up with a stat for it because it definitely has value, especially when the defender you move is normally positioned in the paint.

Just some more stuff on the value of 3pt shooters:

Ziller's Hook Looks at Volume 3PT Shooters

quote:

---

The league as a whole hit 35.9 percent of the three-pointers taken last season. You would expect that the players who shoot lots of threes tend to do so at a rate greater than 35.9 percent. It makes sense: the best three-point shooters in the league should take a bigger share of the shots available.

And these are important considerations, as threes are totally vital to a great offense. Consider that shooting 100 threes at 35.9 percent gives you about 108 points. You'd need to shoot 54 percent on two-pointers to match that. The league's two-point percentage last year was ... 48 percent.

---

quote:

---

(JR) Smith, for example, shot 45.7 percent on two-pointers, which is the equivalent of shooting 30.5 percent on threes. He actually shot 35.6 percent on threes, so all else being equal, it's better for him to take the typical J.R. Smith three than a typical J.R. Smith two-pointer

---

For comparison, according to NBA. com Anderson shot 46% on all shots, including in the paint and at the rim, inside the arc. Close, but below league average. He shot 38% on 3s.

As posted above in this thread, to mathematically justify Anderson taking less threes, he would have to boost his 2point% 11% to 57%. Based on what Ziller writes, 57% is a hell of a jump above the league average. According to ESPN.com there were only 10 guys in the league who shot over 57% on 2PTs. Of those 10, the only three who aren't taking almost all of their shots inside the paint are Matt Barnes, Serge Ibaka, and LeBron James (because of course).

Anderson taking less threes would make him less efficient and valuable. It would make the Pelicans' offense less efficient. We want Anderson on that arc launching threes. We need Anderson on that arc launching threes.

PS- Ziller also makes a thought provoking point at the end of this piece on shot creation and distribution. Anderson may take a ton of threes, but how many guys are on the team that are more efficient scorers than he is? Not sure of an answer, but it's an interesting question.