- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 10/9/13 at 11:32 am to TulaneTigerFan
quote:
Lol
Perhaps a Supersonic player will be the next top 5 player...
Oh.
Posted on 10/9/13 at 11:44 am to corndeaux
quote:
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.
That is just a ridiculous use of math. What team could or would shoot all 3s for a game? It's not even a valid point. Here is the league offensive stats for last season (LINK ). There is absolutely no correlation to 3pta, 3ptm or 3p%. The records are all over the board. It is a vital piece or the offense, but so is every other aspect of play. Is there little wonder that Miami pretty much leads in every major offensive category.
Also, there is a not so hidden benefit of mid-range and post shots. You pick up more fouls and continuation opportunities. So you have more chances at the line. He didn't work that into the equation.
quote:
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.
If you say so. I don't think it'll help the team any and it'll just make him more of a gimmick player. But if you think that is what he should be, then great. I'd prefer a PF that can actually defend, get defensive rebounds, drive to the basket, get fouls, you know.. stuff a post player should do. We already have a player like that in Davis..
Are you saying that he should take more? Would you like to see him shoot 10 a game? Do you think the team would be better with him doing that? How many bad games would he have to have before they shite can that plan?
Posted on 10/9/13 at 11:50 am to Fleur de Diable
quote:
Appreciate the value of volume shooter article, but corndeaux, you've been around long enough. You should know not to waste your time trying to explain things to brmark. His act is as bland/unoriginal as his name. It has to be an act, because if some of the mind boggling statements he's made are what he really thinks, I'm afraid.
Yeah, I'm a lost cause. I'm actually having fun discussing it with him and I believe I have been totally receptive of his ideas. I've even admitted the guy knows a ton more than I do, but that's alright. I don't agree with him, but I don't know why that would bug you or why you would care. I kind of thought the whole point of this forum is to discuss or debate ideas and concepts. Sorry you are fearful of a different point of view. The world is full of them..
Posted on 10/9/13 at 12:22 pm to brmark70816
I don't think Anderson is a non-factor in other offensive aspects. Dude gets rebounds and put-backs just like other PF's. Maybe not in the same volume, but he has been helpful, if not productive, in the limited time he ended up down low last season.
The game Monday reminded me of that part of his game I had always thought was undervalued by a lot of people on here.
The game Monday reminded me of that part of his game I had always thought was undervalued by a lot of people on here.
Posted on 10/9/13 at 12:42 pm to brmark70816
quote:
Sorry you are fearful of a different point of view
Not fearful of different points of view, not in the slightest. I'm afraid for the others around you irl. If you can type some of the antiquated thoughts and hit send, what other horrible decisions do you make. I mean, lets just take this argument for example, mid-range shots have been shown to be one of the most inefficient shots. Perfect example was the 76ers team last year who emphasized mid range jumpers. But, people hear announcers saying the mid range is a lost art, well guess what it's become lost for a reason, but if you want to go find it, you can go hang with Doug Collins.
Posted on 10/9/13 at 4:03 pm to brmark70816
quote:
It's not even a valid point. Here is the league offensive stats for last season (LINK )
Of the teams in the top 10 of 3PM, 8 of them were top 10 in OFF efficiency in the league. The other 2 were top 15 offenses. Seems like there might be a connection between making 3s and having an efficient offense.
quote:
Also, there is a not so hidden benefit of mid-range and post shots. You pick up more fouls and continuation opportunities. So you have more chances at the line. He didn't work that into the equation.
This is a fair point. But not many mid range shots are drawing fouls. And can you say how frequent a drive draws a foul? What frequency and what conversion rate bump that 48% number up to 54% to match league average 3PT%?
quote:
I'd prefer a PF that can actually defend, get defensive rebounds, drive to the basket, get fouls, you know.. stuff a post player should do
Here it is. This is the fundamental difference. You look at a 6'10" guy listed as a PF and have an expectation of what he should do. There's nothing wrong with that.
I look at the same guy and see how his talents can be used to help the team. Positional roles are not set in stone. Why does it matter if Anderson is a 3pt shooter and Tyreke Evans is the post player? Positions have no meaning, just a shorthand to help talk about the game.
What a guy can do is more important to me than whether he mimics the Platonic ideal of his position.
Posted on 10/9/13 at 7:34 pm to Fleur de Diable
quote:
Not fearful of different points of view, not in the slightest. I'm afraid for the others around you irl. If you can type some of the antiquated thoughts and hit send, what other horrible decisions do you make
I don't get the personal attacks, but I'm not going to retaliate. You're just cheapening your position.
quote:
Perfect example was the 76ers team last year who emphasized mid range jumpers. But, people hear announcers saying the mid range is a lost art, well guess what it's become lost for a reason,
So, are you saying there is never a reason to shoot a mid range jumper? It's either a lay up or a 3pt shot? IMO, every shot is important and you should take the best open shot. Duncan has made a career out of that shot and so have many other players. To suggest they should have stepped back an extra 5-10 feet would be a strange argument.
quote:
you can go hang with Doug Collins.
I'm pretty sure Collins knows way more about basketball than everybody on this board combined. Philly sucked last year, got destroyed by injuries and still won 34 games. I think he got a bad reputation for no reason.
Posted on 10/9/13 at 8:22 pm to brmark70816
quote:
So, are you saying there is never a reason to shoot a mid range jumper? I
Did I say never take one? No. I'm saying if one wants to make it a mainstay of the offense they choose to run, then its a poor decision. If its open, take it, but its not a shot that we should chase.
quote:
To suggest they should have stepped back an extra 5-10 feet would be a strange argument.
Then I guess I'm strange. For me, it's not just them taking the shot, but just the fact that they're there. Them being further out those 5-10 feet opens up space for others to drive or for cutters. Now, we have one less defender clogging the lane, in the case of Ryan Anderson he'll most likely be bringing an interior defender with him. That will be more likely when we have lineups without aminu, in which other teams will hide their pf on him, like they did often last year.
quote:
I'm pretty sure Collins knows way more about basketball than everybody on this board combined.
Once again, you're putting words in my mouth. Never questioned his basketball knowledge, just his willingness to take place in the evolution of the game. Philly's record was not solely due to injuries last year. Everywhere he's been his personality has worn down his team to the point where he loses them. If it were just in Philly, maybe we could pass it off as the players, but his track record speaks for itself.
Posted on 10/10/13 at 9:42 am to brmark70816
quote:quote:
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:
That is just a ridiculous use of math. What team could or would shoot all 3s for a game?
This just kept eating at me.
The fact that you think his math is ridiculous is absurd. It is a very basic concept. 3s are worth more than 2s. Ergo you can hit 3s at a lower rate than twos, yet still score more total points.
Ziller is not advocating shooting only 3s. He states they are
quote:
totally vital to a great offense
Vital is not only. He uses 100 because it's an easy number to manipulate. In fact the premise of the piece is that some guys shoot TOO MANY 3s, converting them at a poor rate, and thus appear to hurt their teams' efficiency.
I can understand being disappointed by Anderson's flaws and confused by his skill set. But I am confounded that the simple math behind 3PT v 2PT is "ridiculous."
Posted on 10/10/13 at 10:15 am to VOR
quote:
quote: Everybody knows why everybody loves Anderson but nobody will say it. Although, I suppose, it doesn't hurt with some fans.
I hope I don't contribute in the derailing of a thread but I don't see a problem with that being a reason. People relate with people that look like them. It's why black kids look up to most NBA players and old white guys Ike Larry Bird.
Actual contribution:
Ryno has an incredibly underrated post up game. Add that to his floor spacing and ability to uncrowd the lane for David and he is a game changer.
Posted on 10/10/13 at 10:30 am to corndeaux
quote:
The fact that you think his math is ridiculous is absurd. It is a very basic concept. 3s are worth more than 2s. Ergo you can hit 3s at a lower rate than twos, yet still score more total points. Ziller is not advocating shooting only 3s. He states they are
I don't think the math is wrong, just taking it to that extreme to make a point was ridiculous. I know they are more valuable and having good 3pt shooters is a necessity. I just think shooting too many or relying on them is a dangerous offensive philosophy. It's just too easy to have off games.
In retrospect, when I looked back at the stats from last season I was surprised NO didn't shoot more 3pts. Anderson was pretty much their only shooter, so maybe he had to shoot more. Since Aminu doesn't shoot at all, Gordon was hurt and Rivers didn't take many either, the burden was on him to give the team that threat. Hopefully the additions of Holiday, Morrow, Evans and a healthy Gordon will take the onus off him.
quote:
I can understand being disappointed by Anderson's flaws and confused by his skill set. But I am confounded that the simple math behind 3PT v 2PT is "ridiculous."
Once again... Reductio ad absurdum
My main issue is everybody keeps saying that Anderson is an "elite" shooter or a great shooter and that just rubs me wrong. I know he is proficient and his range is a valuable commodity (although I think his weaknesses are just way overlooked), but I don't think of him as a great shooter.
For example, what if I said Lebron James is an elite FT shooter and one of the best in the league? He makes a ton of them and he shoots slightly above the league average. So would I be wrong? In my mind, that wouldn't be accurate cause his % is way lower than the leaders in that category. See where I am coming from?
Posted on 10/10/13 at 10:47 am to brmark70816
quote:
I just think shooting too many or relying on them is a dangerous offensive philosophy. It's just too easy to have off games.
For a team maybe, but not a specific player. I personally would be fine if Morrow took 80% of his shots from 3. That's unrealistic, but philosophically speaking I'm fine with that for him. As for the team, I can't remember the specific numbers, but Monty often throws out "We want to take X 3s per game, Score X Points" etc. and the team goals he throws out are usually pretty modest.
quote:
My main issue is everybody keeps saying that Anderson is an "elite" shooter or a great shooter and that just rubs me wrong. I know he is proficient and his range is a valuable commodity (although I think his weaknesses are just way overlooked), but I don't think of him as a great shooter.
For example, what if I said Lebron James is an elite FT shooter and one of the best in the league? He makes a ton of them and he shoots slightly above the league average. So would I be wrong? In my mind, that wouldn't be accurate cause his % is way lower than the leaders in that category. See where I am coming from?
I don't think that's quite the same. Again, compare Anderson to Morrow. The stats say Morrow is a better shooter, but the spacing Anderson creates is different and more valuable because it pulls away a post defender. I presume you wouldn't have a problem with calling Morrow and his 42% career average elite. Well if Anderson is able to provide more value with a lower percent, why can't he be elite? If money weren't an issue would you choose Morrow over Anderson?
Posted on 10/10/13 at 10:59 am to TigerinATL
quote:
don't think that's quite the same. Again, compare Anderson to Morrow. The stats say Morrow is a better shooter, but the spacing Anderson creates is different and more valuable because it pulls away a post defender. I presume you wouldn't have a problem with calling Morrow and his 42% career average elite. Well if Anderson is able to provide more value with a lower percent, why can't he be elite? If money weren't an issue would you choose Morrow over Anderson?
A few years ago, I thought that Morrow could have been a great player. Honestly I thought he could be a borderline 20ppg guy and a top 10 SG. He just never got any better. So now he is a hired gun. So no, I would not take him over Anderson. I know that Anderson has a lot of talent. I think he could become a pretty special player even, in the right system and with the proper supporting players around him. I do not believe Davis and him are a good mix and I think it hurts both, to an extent. Perhaps there are ways to correct that (I hope there are) and I'd love to be wrong. But I don't want anything to hamper Davis' ascension to greatness..
Posted on 10/10/13 at 11:23 am to TigerinATL
quote:
but the spacing Anderson creates is different and more valuable because it pulls away a post defender.
Quick question, do most teams defend this way? I know most defenses are mainly man to man with some zone, but they usually swap off. So why would post defenders drift off to the perimeter? They would hand the guy off. Towards the later part of the year, it seemed teams just defended Anderson with a SF or SG. Especially if he isn't a threat to drive/bull over a small defender. I guess the plus side is he has a better look over shorter players. But I don't see the big guys coming all the way out to him anymore..
Posted on 10/10/13 at 11:24 am to brmark70816
quote:
I don't want anything to hamper Davis' ascension to greatness..
I don't think anything will. He's been unbelievable this preseason and he's not supposed to enter his prime for another 4-5 years. I know it's just preseason but I'm really starting to wonder if we've undersold his ceiling.
Posted on 10/10/13 at 11:37 am to TigerinATL
quote:
I don't think anything will. He's been unbelievable this preseason and he's not supposed to enter his prime for another 4-5 years. I know it's just preseason but I'm really starting to wonder if we've undersold his ceiling.
Yeah, I know I can come off as negative sometimes, but I am really excited about Davis. I just don't want to botch building the team around him, like so many other teams do. I think Holiday was a good get, but I'm not sold on these other pieces just yet.. A player proves me wrong every year though. So hopefully one of these guys really busts out..
Posted on 10/10/13 at 6:30 pm to brmark70816
quote:
Anderson is an "elite" shooter or a great shooter and that just rubs me wrong.
I have said this freely: He is an elite volume 3PT shooter.
Said earlier plenty of other guys are better "pure" shooters. But they also arent hoisting the same # of 3s. Soaking up possessions and using them efficiently is a skill. His ability to get those shots off and convert at a high rate on a nightly basis is rare.
quote:
But I don't want anything to hamper Davis' ascension to greatness..
Anderson is as good a complement offensively to Davis as you're going to find. When Davis attacks the rim via drive or PnR, Anderson is pulling his man out of the lane. Its similar to West/Chandler except West was at the elbow, not the arc.
Defensively is where the pairing will sink or swim.
quote:
Towards the later part of the year, it seemed teams just defended Anderson with a SF or SG
Yep. Aminu is a non threat on offense. Pairing him with Anderson likely means that a switch will occur. The hope is better perimeter talent (Holiday, Evans, Gordon, Rivers, Morrow) means teams cant do that.
Posted on 10/11/13 at 11:09 am to corndeaux
Final thing I will say about Anderson and his worth.
Over his career he's averaged 5.1 3PA/G and hit them at 38.4%. I ran the B/R Season Finder for guys who took at least 5 3PA/G and hit them at least 38% over their careers.
The list is Klay Thompson, Steph Curry, Ray Allen, Peja, and Anderson
There have been 13 players who took 5 3PA/G. The next closest % wise to Anderson is JR Smith at 37.1%. Anderson, while not in the stratosphere of Curry et al, is clearly a cut above the other guys.
I dropped the 3PA/G to 4.5 and kept the "easy" 38% number. I got 10 players. The original 5 plus Reggie Miller and Dennis Scott (at 39.5% and 39.7% respectively), Rashard Lewis, Chauncey Billups, and Danny Granger (38.8% for Lewis and Billups, 38.4% for Granger).
I ran the numbers again with the 3PA/G down to 4, while keeping the 38%. You get 11 new players, all known as shooters- give or take OJ Mayo and Bradley Beal's reputation.
I went to 3 3PA/G and 38%. The number of players jumped to 53.
And down to 2 3PA/G we finally get over 100 players- a few of whom played less than 30 games- who have hit threes at a 38% clip for their careers.
If I take away the 3PA/G threshold, there are 221 players who have hit 3s at 38% for their careers. Among that number are such luminaries as Josh Akognon, Drew Barry, Meyers Leonard, Oliver Lafayette, Luis Flores, Gundars Vetra, Shavlik Randolph, and many more.
Yes, Anderson is not the greatest shooter in the league. And yes, he has flaws as a player and is not as good an overall player as many of the guys on these lists. Yet very few players have ever matched or exceeded his production as a 3PT shooter. Attacking his skill as a 3PT shooter is just grossly misinformed.
Over his career he's averaged 5.1 3PA/G and hit them at 38.4%. I ran the B/R Season Finder for guys who took at least 5 3PA/G and hit them at least 38% over their careers.
The list is Klay Thompson, Steph Curry, Ray Allen, Peja, and Anderson
There have been 13 players who took 5 3PA/G. The next closest % wise to Anderson is JR Smith at 37.1%. Anderson, while not in the stratosphere of Curry et al, is clearly a cut above the other guys.
I dropped the 3PA/G to 4.5 and kept the "easy" 38% number. I got 10 players. The original 5 plus Reggie Miller and Dennis Scott (at 39.5% and 39.7% respectively), Rashard Lewis, Chauncey Billups, and Danny Granger (38.8% for Lewis and Billups, 38.4% for Granger).
I ran the numbers again with the 3PA/G down to 4, while keeping the 38%. You get 11 new players, all known as shooters- give or take OJ Mayo and Bradley Beal's reputation.
I went to 3 3PA/G and 38%. The number of players jumped to 53.
And down to 2 3PA/G we finally get over 100 players- a few of whom played less than 30 games- who have hit threes at a 38% clip for their careers.
If I take away the 3PA/G threshold, there are 221 players who have hit 3s at 38% for their careers. Among that number are such luminaries as Josh Akognon, Drew Barry, Meyers Leonard, Oliver Lafayette, Luis Flores, Gundars Vetra, Shavlik Randolph, and many more.
Yes, Anderson is not the greatest shooter in the league. And yes, he has flaws as a player and is not as good an overall player as many of the guys on these lists. Yet very few players have ever matched or exceeded his production as a 3PT shooter. Attacking his skill as a 3PT shooter is just grossly misinformed.
Posted on 10/11/13 at 12:05 pm to corndeaux
quote:
Final thing I will say about Anderson and his worth.
I don't see you letting this go anytime soon. You are hell bent on proving Anderson is a super special PF that doesn't need to rebound, defend or pass especially well because the team needs a really tall guy that can shoot 3's better than most. They need him so bad, they need to move over there once in a generation player to a position that ill suits him and might cause him injury, just to get him more minutes and shots, because 3's are the most efficient shot (mathematically speaking).
quote:
kept the "easy" 38% number
Why 38? Why not 35 or 36? Cause, in my mind, there are certain thresholds. Guys that shoot over 35 and then the next level up, guys that shoot 40+. Is it because it just helps your point and if you drop it that low, you start getting a bunch of guys that really aren't that special?
quote:
Yes, Anderson is not the greatest shooter in the league. And yes, he has flaws as a player and is not as good an overall player as many of the guys on these lists. Yet very few players have ever matched or exceeded his production as a 3PT shooter. Attacking his skill as a 3PT shooter is just grossly misinformed.
Have I attacked him for it? I don't think it's as special as you do, but I have said he is a good shooter. I don't think it is as near important as you do obviously.
Let me ask you this. The greatest shooter I watched growing up, played a lot of PF. His career numbers on 3's were 1.9 attempts per game and a career 37.6%. You have never mentioned him and none of your stats included him (a top 20 all time player and regarded as one of the greatest shooters of all time). So why wasn't this guy, that averaged 24.3 ppg, shooting more 3's? Did it make him less of a player or a shooter? Especially when you are basically saying or implying that Anderson is in a special club that this guy couldn't get into..
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News