Random Thoughts following 2 back 2 back blowouts

  • Thread starter Thread starter sactownfan
  • Start date Start date
The_Jamal said:
#hashtagsmakeyoucool

Either way, I'd love to hear why you think I have no basketball knowledge. After all, this is a basketball discussion board where we're supposed to have basketball debates.
Click to expand...


I'll give the one colossal example and then I'll let history decide the rest: you said Kevin Martin is a better shooter than Michael Jordan, and you used a number to do so.

Michael Jordan is the most clutch player in the history of sports. He faced the best defender on every team he played. He was routinely double and triple teamed. Entire defenses were geared towards stopping him. He took, and made, many more difficult shots than Kevin Martin ever will. Could Kevin Martin beat Jordan in a 3 point contest? Maybe. But there is more to shooting a basketball than standing unguarded at the three point line. Is Kevin Martin a better shooter than Kobe Bryant? Hold on, let me check the numbers...


#hashtagsmakeyoucoolonlyifyoudontthinkkevinmartinisabettershooterthanmichaeljordan
 
Last edited:
The Hammer said:
Hash tags actually do make you cool.

I'll give the one colossal example and then I'll let history decide the rest: you said Kevin Martin is a better shooter than Michael Jordan, and you used a number to do so.

Michael Jordan is the most clutch player in the history of sports. He faced the best defender on every team he played. He was routinely double and triple teamed. Entire defenses were geared towards stopping him. He took, and made, many more difficult shots than Kevin Martin ever will. Could Kevin Martin beat Jordan in a 3 point contest? Maybe. But there is more to shooting basketball than standing unguarded at the three point line. Is Kevin Martin a better shooter than Kobe Bryant? Hold on, let me check the numbers...
Click to expand...

Thus why I stated the dangers of using 1 statistic to compare players as Brick was doing. Kevin Martin's career averages are better than Michael's at the FT line and the 3pt line. So I reasonably say that Kevin Martin is a better shooter than MJ. Does that make him better player/scorer/defender/clutch than MJ? God no. Just in the same way I can state Reggie Miller/Peja/Ray Allen are all better shooters than MJ but obviously not better players
 
The_Jamal said:
Thus why I stated the dangers of using 1 statistic to compare players as Brick was doing. Kevin Martin's career averages are better than Michael's at the FT line and the 3pt line. So I reasonably say that Kevin Martin is a better shooter than MJ. Does that make him better player/scorer/defender/clutch than MJ? God no. Just in the same way I can state Reggie Miller/Peja/Ray Allen are all better shooters than MJ but obviously not better players
Click to expand...

Those guys you mentioned are spot up 3 pt specialists (exception maybe Reggie Miller who could create a little bit), and they really depend on other players to help get them open.

My point is that "shooting" includes shooting with 2 or three guys draped all over you (including the other team's best defender), and being forced to create a shot for yourself, with a few seconds left, when the pressure is on. And that when you do a lot of that type of thing, you are also increasing the percentages of the other guys around you. Now, can you create a stat for that? Maybe, but no need. Just watch a game. Michael Jordan was a better shooter than Kevin Martin.

btw I never said defense. I'm still talking about offense, and I'm still talking about shooting the basketball. clutch is included in shooting. #pejaairballbecausehashtagsreallydomakeone#cool#
 
Last edited:
gunks said:
Late to the party.

IMHO the improved ball movement isnt so much a result of no Reke, as it is a result of no Reke/Thornton. Offense is a bit smoother with only one ball dominator to worry about (I guess 2, counting IT), and I think we'd see similar results if Thornton was out and Reke was playing in these games. The two guys just dont fit AT ALL.

I'm also an advocate of moving MT to the bench and Reke back to the 2, but as was pointed out by other posters...The two would still log heavy minutes together on the court, so its an iffy solution at best.

I really just dont think the two can coexist, one will have to be moved eventually before we can take the next step as a team. Reke would net more assets in a trade, but he's also a way more rounded player than MT and plays far better defense. I'd like to see us "sell high" on Marcus this summer, but that'll never happen.
Click to expand...
I have the same views on the Evans/Thornton duo. It would be alright with me to make Thornton the 6th man but I don't know if it would "alright with him". I agree that an IT/TE/JS would work as well as last night's lineup. But I will leave it in Smart and his staff's good hands. Anything I can see they can see better.
 
Capt. Factorial said:
No, of course it couldn't if we're talking about a fair coin (which we were). Those are highly unlikely scenarios, and while they can happen by chance they will happen very rarely. Arkitect's point is that we intuitively believe that mid-length runs ought to be uncommon, but that intuition is wrong. Mid-length runs happen all the time in chance scenarios, and we shouldn't attribute "hot" or "cold" to them.
Click to expand...
Right, with a fair coin, but I have a problem arguing that a person, and by extension their shooting, is a fair coin. Such a run that I've outlined could still happen. What if we're seeing that right now? At what point do we establish that they will return back to the mean, or realize that their percentage is in the process of evolving? It's so tough to do, and we could concede that there isn't anything cold and hard about this one.
I'm not sure what different shot motions have to do with anything here. I will note my disagreement with the sentiment that an attempt to determine whether "hot" or "cold" streaks actually exist is a fool's errand. I believe it is quite a valid thing to look at.
Click to expand...
Again, I'm just focusing on the attribute of attempting to qualify a statistic on something that varies so much as a jump shot.

BTW, I should have clarified my last statement as "masters degree", not "masters", as it looks pretty bad on the review.
 
gunks said:
Problem with IT is his size.

Dude needs to have a great game every night in order to match the production of whoever he's up against.

IT has definitely been amazing for a last pick though. I see him as a future 6th man type player. Putting up starter like stats off the bench as a pace changer. I hope he sticks with the team for a long time, but 6th man is his role.

He's been averaging 15/5 as a starter though, at 49%. It would be interesting to see what his opponents have averaged.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's important to have our pg (Thomas) equal his opponent pg stats. His job is to make the team function as well as possible. If he does that, his stats are secondary. In other words, I don't care what his opponents stats were. On defense. if Thomas slows down the point production of the other team's pg that is effective defense.
 
Spike said:
Right, with a fair coin, but I have a problem arguing that a person, and by extension their shooting, is a fair coin. Such a run that I've outlined could still happen. What if we're seeing that right now? At what point do we establish that they will return back to the mean, or realize that their percentage is in the process of evolving? It's so tough to do, and we could concede that there isn't anything cold and hard about this one.
Click to expand...

Let me modify the "fair coin" terminology because under standard usage it implies a 50% hit rate, which is not necessarily the case. Rather let me talk about a "constant coin" whose probability may not be exactly 50% heads (could be anything) but which does not vary over time. On the other hand we have a "streaky coin" whose probability on any flip can change over time as the coin becomes "hot" or "cold". The question at hand is whether shooters in basketball are "constant coins" or "streaky coins". The way you would do this is to take a null hypothesis (in this case, the hypothesis that players are "constant coins") and look at the data to try to disprove that hypothesis. There's a lot of data out there, and people have looked at this multiple times. To my understanding, I do not know of any hypothesis-based test like this that has been able to reject the null hypothesis. Technically, I wouldn't make the argument that basketball shooters are "constant coins" but rather that there we have found no evidence to suggest that they are not. If one wants to continue to believe in streak shooting because it "obviously" happens or ought to happen, well, there's always a chance that evidence to back up that position will emerge in the future. But that doesn't change the fact that people have looked for such evidence already, and not found it.

Again, I'm just focusing on the attribute of attempting to qualify a statistic on something that varies so much as a jump shot.
Click to expand...

I don't see why this is a problem. Did the ball go in or not? It's a pretty simple binomial statistics exercise when it comes down to it.

BTW, I should have clarified my last statement as "masters degree", not "masters", as it looks pretty bad on the review.
Click to expand...

That was clear enough in my book.
 
Mass said:
+1

I am not worried about Jimmer's shooting. We know he can shoot, no doubt about it. And we all know that shooters have those days (and weeks) when they can't buy a bucket. I don't know if I'm the only one here, but I think that yesterday Jimmer played quite well, better than his last games. He was more confident with the ball, he had some good passes and also a couple of steals. Nothing to get excited about, but I'm sure with him it's going to be a step-by-step process, and yesterday was a step in the right direction.

BTW, I read the article on that blog, and I completely disagree. Shooting is not like flipping a coin, it's about confidence. You gain confidence hitting shots, and I do believe that hot and cold streaks exist. I also believe that the people who wrote that article and made that study never touched a basket ball.
Click to expand...

Jimmer played well yesterday... and I bet his playing time is less dependent on whether his shot falls and more on his decision making & his ability to anticipate defensively... (why else does Donte still have a greenlight to shoot threes?)

In terms of the streak shooting thing.... It's probably not worth disagreeing to heavily, it's been hashed out so many times, and there aren't many arguments left to be refuted. Check out this one on 82games..... http://www.82games.com/random25.htm

BTW - this whole thing about underestimating how long a streak can last is the whole reason that people lose a lot of money on Roulette tables when they go with the whole "Bet on black and double up if you don't win" strategy. It sounds like a sure fire win, but it's too easy to raise the stakes to the point where you can't put up the money to double down.
 
The_Jamal said:
No one's asking IT to replace Reke as our franchise player! What we can all agree on I believe is that IT in his 15 games as a starter has been more effective at running PG than Tyreke has shown the ability to do. That can obviously change, but why change what is working with IT? Move Reke to the 2 and let him worry about scoring and being a top-notch defender.

As people have alluded too, the problem exists with Reke and Thornton who demand a good portion of the offense when they are on the floor together (which is most of the time)
Click to expand...

Because starting IT will not give you and benefit for the future, it is a waste of time. Team is not going with IT as your starting 1, 1st round exit at best. Like I said b4, you should start a 5'9 guy unless the name is AI.
 
Goo said:
Because starting IT will not give you and benefit for the future, it is a waste of time. Team is not going with IT as your starting 1, 1st round exit at best. Like I said b4, you should start a 5'9 guy unless the name is AI.
Click to expand...


should note here while I don't disagree with your point, A.I. was always listed at 6'0"
 
Spike said:
Right, with a fair coin, but I have a problem arguing that a person, and by extension their shooting, is a fair coin. Such a run that I've outlined could still happen. What if we're seeing that right now? At what point do we establish that they will return back to the mean, or realize that their percentage is in the process of evolving? It's so tough to do, and we could concede that there isn't anything cold and hard about this one.

Again, I'm just focusing on the attribute of attempting to qualify a statistic on something that varies so much as a jump shot.

BTW, I should have clarified my last statement as "masters degree", not "masters", as it looks pretty bad on the review.
Click to expand...

Spike, your starting to make my head hurt. Whats more, I'm stupidly sitting here fliping a coin. My day is ruined!!!
 
Capt. Factorial said:
Let me modify the "fair coin" terminology because under standard usage it implies a 50% hit rate, which is not necessarily the case. Rather let me talk about a "constant coin" whose probability may not be exactly 50% heads (could be anything) but which does not vary over time. On the other hand we have a "streaky coin" whose probability on any flip can change over time as the coin becomes "hot" or "cold". The question at hand is whether shooters in basketball are "constant coins" or "streaky coins". The way you would do this is to take a null hypothesis (in this case, the hypothesis that players are "constant coins") and look at the data to try to disprove that hypothesis. There's a lot of data out there, and people have looked at this multiple times. To my understanding, I do not know of any hypothesis-based test like this that has been able to reject the null hypothesis. Technically, I wouldn't make the argument that basketball shooters are "constant coins" but rather that there we have found no evidence to suggest that they are not. If one wants to continue to believe in streak shooting because it "obviously" happens or ought to happen, well, there's always a chance that evidence to back up that position will emerge in the future. But that doesn't change the fact that people have looked for such evidence already, and not found it.



I don't see why this is a problem. Did the ball go in or not? It's a pretty simple binomial statistics exercise when it comes down to it.



That was clear enough in my book.
Click to expand...


Arrrrrgh! Where is my gun? I'm ready to blow my brains out!
 
Goo said:
Because starting IT will not give you and benefit for the future, it is a waste of time. Team is not going with IT as your starting 1, 1st round exit at best. Like I said b4, you should start a 5'9 guy unless the name is AI.
Click to expand...

IT may not be starting for other team but for us he's the only guy on this team who knows how to play PG (well most of the time). Plus it's not the hieght of the player but how high the player play. I think IT plays with a lot of heart and is developing well, much better than Jimmer at this point in time. Evans from my perspective couldn't handle the PG position.
 
Bricklayer said:
should note here while I don't disagree with your point, A.I. was always listed at 6'0"
Click to expand...

According to combine records. AI was actually 6'0" without shoes, which means he was at least 6'1" with shoes. IT's 5'9" measurement is also without shoes. He measured 5'10.25" with shoes. There, he should be able to play a little better now with the extra inch. Chris Paul and Raymond Felton are both under 6' without shoes.
 
I think the talk about Tyreke and ball movement is valid if you look at his earlier play. But recently he certainly has shown to be a willing passer. Not going to bother getting into any arguments bout IT. Lets just be happy the team is doing well.
 
The Hammer said:
Those guys you mentioned are spot up 3 pt specialists (exception maybe Reggie Miller who could create a little bit), and they really depend on other players to help get them open.

My point is that "shooting" includes shooting with 2 or three guys draped all over you (including the other team's best defender), and being forced to create a shot for yourself, with a few seconds left, when the pressure is on. And that when you do a lot of that type of thing, you are also increasing the percentages of the other guys around you. Now, can you create a stat for that? Maybe, but no need. Just watch a game. Michael Jordan was a better shooter than Kevin Martin.

btw I never said defense. I'm still talking about offense, and I'm still talking about shooting the basketball. clutch is included in shooting. #pejaairballbecausehashtagsreallydomakeone#cool#
Click to expand...

You had to mention the airball, didn't you?
 
The Hammer said:
Those guys you mentioned are spot up 3 pt specialists (exception maybe Reggie Miller who could create a little bit), and they really depend on other players to help get them open.

My point is that "shooting" includes shooting with 2 or three guys draped all over you (including the other team's best defender), and being forced to create a shot for yourself, with a few seconds left, when the pressure is on. And that when you do a lot of that type of thing, you are also increasing the percentages of the other guys around you. Now, can you create a stat for that? Maybe, but no need. Just watch a game. Michael Jordan was a better shooter than Kevin Martin.

btw I never said defense. I'm still talking about offense, and I'm still talking about shooting the basketball. clutch is included in shooting. #pejaairballbecausehashtagsreallydomakeone#cool#
Click to expand...

1. People's definition of clutch are all different. 2. In what world is "having 3 guys draped all over you and still being able to hit a shot" part of the definition of shooting? That's called being a fantastic offensive scorer and being better than your competition as MJ was.

Shooting is the rate you put the ball basket. A 20% 3pt shooter is (wait for it) a poor 3pt shooter. A 40% 3pt shooter is a great 3pt shooter. MJ is the GOAT because he could score on anyone at anytime and as you said is the most clutch sports figure in history. However, this does not change the fact he was a career 32% 3pt shooter, an 83% FT shooter and a 49 FG% shooter. People like Kevin Martin/Ray Allen/Peja/Reggie and many other NBA Players have shot better than MJ did during his career. It doesn't make them better Scorers or offensive players than him
 
Well, to be fair you did originally say, "your flat out being a Reke homer if you're going to tell me that he's been better offensively than IT's 15 game stretch as a starter". Better offensively is different than a better shooter. So it's all moot unless you think Martin is better offensively than Jordan.
 
uolj said:
Well, to be fair you did originally say, "your flat out being a Reke homer if you're going to tell me that he's been better offensively than IT's 15 game stretch as a starter". Better offensively is different than a better shooter. So it's all moot unless you think Martin is better offensively than Jordan.
Click to expand...

Are you trying to say there is more to offense than shooting. :) An amazing concept.
 
The_Jamal said:
1. People's definition of clutch are all different. 2. In what world is "having 3 guys draped all over you and still being able to hit a shot" part of the definition of shooting? That's called being a fantastic offensive scorer and being better than your competition as MJ was.

Shooting is the rate you put the ball basket. A 20% 3pt shooter is (wait for it) a poor 3pt shooter. A 40% 3pt shooter is a great 3pt shooter. MJ is the GOAT because he could score on anyone at anytime and as you said is the most clutch sports figure in history. However, this does not change the fact he was a career 32% 3pt shooter, an 83% FT shooter and a 49 FG% shooter. People like Kevin Martin/Ray Allen/Peja/Reggie and many other NBA Players have shot better than MJ did during his career. It doesn't make them better Scorers or offensive players than him
Click to expand...

I'm not jumping in to continue the argument as I have no desire to.

Just want to point out when ever someone refers to "clutch" as in "clutch statistics", which are kept, it always refers to the final 5 mins of a game. A few websites track clutch performances and it is always and only the final 5 mins.
 
Last edited:
The_Jamal said:
1. People's definition of clutch are all different. 2. In what world is "having 3 guys draped all over you and still being able to hit a shot" part of the definition of shooting? That's called being a fantastic offensive scorer and being better than your competition as MJ was.

Shooting is the rate you put the ball basket. A 20% 3pt shooter is (wait for it) a poor 3pt shooter. A 40% 3pt shooter is a great 3pt shooter. MJ is the GOAT because he could score on anyone at anytime and as you said is the most clutch sports figure in history. However, this does not change the fact he was a career 32% 3pt shooter, an 83% FT shooter and a 49 FG% shooter. People like Kevin Martin/Ray Allen/Peja/Reggie and many other NBA Players have shot better than MJ did during his career. It doesn't make them better Scorers or offensive players than him
Click to expand...

I give up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Caccia
Monk, DeRozan, Sabonis
Replies
19
Views
2K
Caccia
Caccia
King Baller
This is why we love the Kings
Replies
9
Views
977
MizzouKing
MizzouKing
Spike
  • Poll Poll
NBA Power Rankings, Week of 11/28
Replies
0
Views
172
Spike
Spike
Caccia
  • Locked
[Game] 29/82: Kings vs. Lakers 21 December 2024 3 pm PT/6 pm ET
9 10 11
Replies
323
Views
7K
sactowndog
sactowndog
J
Balancing the First and Second Units
6 7 8
Replies
211
Views
9K
hrdboild
hrdboild
Back
Top