RalphySampson
G-League
Very interesting. The 2nd place guy isn't really even close to him either.
Again this is because of the number of Fts he attempts isn't it...
Kobe, Lebron, Ive,... shoot a lot of FTs too.Again this is because of the number of Fts he attempts isn't it...
Actually on this list, only Peirce and Roy have shoot less FT then Martin.An interesting stat.... Point per shot:
Brandon Roy: 1,209
Dwayne Wade: 1,337
Carmelo Anthony: 1,339
Lebron James: 1,370
Kobe Bryant: 1,375
Allen Iverson: 1,389
Paul Pierce: 1,431
Kevin Martin: 1,577
Put another another way:
Johnny has two apple trees, they produced 10 apples each for him last year
So Johnny had 10 apples + 10 apples = 20 fruit last year from his two trees.
Conclusion: Johnny earned 10 fruit per apple tree
Susie has an apple tree, it produced 10 fruit for her last year. She also has an orange tree, it produced 10 oranges for her last year.
So Susie had 10 apples + 10 oranges = 20 fruit fom her trees.
Conclusion: Susie earned 20 fruit per apple tree
Bigger Conclusion: Susie's apple tree is twice as efficent as Johnny's
Which again is clearly wrong. Susie's apple tree is getting credited with all of her fruit (icluding oranges) without any acknowledgement that she had an orange tree too.
Put another another another way:
Joe earns $25,000 working as a salesman, he supplements this by earning $25,000 working as a security guard at night. Joe's wife Sarah stays home playing sudoku. Total household income = $50,000. Total Jobs by Joe = 2.
Conlusion: Joe's household earns $25,000 per job he has
Sam earns $25,000 working as a salesman. Sam's wife Bambi earns $25,000 working as a secretary. Total household income = $50,000. Total Jobs by Sam = 1.
Conlusion: Sam's household earns $50,000 per job he has
Bigger Conclusion: Sam earns twice as much for his household per job as Joe does
And again, its that same error. An error of framing. Sam gets all the credit for his wife's money as well as his own, without her job counting in the per job category.
The main problem here is you're framing the wording of the conclusion to prove your result. And, by extension, you're drawing a conclusion that is so erroneous on its face (i.e. any grower or anyone else interested in the statistics being presented would know immediately they were wrong) that it's simply not applicable to comparison to Martin's situation.
The same is true for this example. You're working backwards from an expected/desired result to create a scenario whereby that result/conclusion meets your needs.
Your conclusions leave out key factors. What exactly is the key factor people are leaving out when talking about Martin's efficiency and ability to generate points? Points is points and he's the only one putting the ball - one ball - through the basket - one basket. There isn't an orange tree and there isn't anyone else shooting his shots.
I like the way when arguing against Kevin in the pts per shot stat. that they always bring up FT and 3 pointers as if none of the other guys on that list get to line or shoot 3 pointers.
The fact is you just want to make sure that nobody mentions Kevin in the same breath as the others on that list because they are "franchise". It pisses you off for someone to even think Kevin might be close. Why? becuase well he isn't But he is not a world behind like some tend to think. In fact if we do somehow get that "franchise" guy be it PG,PF, or C (it would have to be one of those) We would be a very dangerous team. Kevin may not be the best 1st option. But he would be the best if not damn close to the best 2nd option in the league.
Yeah, but he also earns those by being good at free throw shooting.One minor quibble is all the technicals / "non-posession" free throws that Kevin gets to take as well, but I don't know how many of those he really gets. Again, a very minor quibble.
One minor quibble is all the technicals / "non-posession" free throws that Kevin gets to take as well, but I don't know how many of those he really gets. Again, a very minor quibble.
right now:
scoring efficiency = total points scored/ shots taken
(this does make Martin look very efficient)
Perhaps a better stat:
scoring efficiency = total points scored/ shots taken + (FTs attempted/2)
This will control for Martin's uncanny ability to get to the line - which is a good thing given that he shoot such a high percentage from the FT line. I am betting that Martin still looks pretty good relative to the rest of the league using this stat.
I do.I'm not sure I get the point of this thread. Kevin is a good player and a large asset to the Kings. Who cares whether he leads the league in scoring or not?
some approach like that, yeah.
this is what I was attempting to do -- except I think to be fair the you have to make it .75 FTAs / 2. My reasoning there being that not every FT is off a two shot foul. Some are continuation Fts, or the third FT when you are fouled on a 3pt play, or in Kevin's case especially, the technical foul freebies. So you only count 75% of the FTAs attempted /2 as shots.
.
Total FTAs/2:
Total FTAs includes just that - FTAs from 2 shot fouls, 1 shot fouls and 1 shot following the technical.
As best I can tell, the usual multiplier in the advanced stats for free throws is 0.44 - if you take the number of free throws attempted and multiply by 0.44 you get approximately the number of shots taken to get those free throws (technically, the shots that don't show up in the box score). So dividing by 2 is off on one side, and Brick's 0.375 multiplier is about equally far off on the other side.
Of course, the 0.44 is only a league-wide estimate. Players who are more likely than average to shoot technical free throws (Kevin) or get fouled on threes (Kevin) or get more and-1s (Kevin? I dunno.) should have their multiplier go down towards Brick's number. The maximum possible multiplier would be 0.5 - for a player whose free throws exclusively came on 2-point shot attempts which he missed.
Anyway, to calculate points-per-shot as intended per this thread, the correct formula would be:
PPS = Points / (FGA + (m*FTA) )
where m is a multiplier that we don't know precisely, but is probably a bit less than 0.44 but likely not much lower than 0.40.
i was waiting for captain factorial to chime in on this topic.![]()
My head is starting to hurt! It used to be such a simple game. I wonder if I can estimate the size of my prostrate gland by the amount of times I urinate during the night after drinking 6 beers versus 0 beers. But if I add the into the equation the fact that I walked my dog in the hot sun, and perspired, that might nulify one beer. There must be a way!
Beer = urination / prostrate + (m*DOGWALK)
If your head hurts, you should probably just drink a beer. That ought to help.
That's funny, I don't recall handicapping the question by limiting the parameters to one year...
Players like Bryant and James, when they get it in their minds that they're going to score, then they're going to score, and **** you if you don't like it.
Surely you don't mean to imply that the only thing separating Martin offensively from the dominant scorers in this league is a paltry five shots per game?