Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
I hope everybody realizes that Kevin effectively took 26 shots tonight (17 + 18FTs/2). There are only so many any one player can get.
X points on X shots... split from Cavs-Kings game thread
- Thread starter Bricklayer
- Start date
I hope everybody realizes that Kevin effectively took 26 shots tonight (17 + 18FTs/2). There are only so many any one player can get.
6th
Homer Fan Since 1985
Ignoring the FT's, since those don't take shots away from anyone, how many shots from the field did he take?
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
No, they DO take shots. That's the mistake of that 32pts on 15 shots or whatever stuff. A FT is a possession just like anything else. A guy draws the foul, goes to the line, that's your possession the same as if he took the shot. Nobody else shoots that time down the floor. So a guy taking 17 shots (what Kevin did) and going to the line for two 9 times is using up exactly as many possessions as a guy taking 26 shots. Which is to say roughly 1/3 of your shots/possessions in the game.
p.s. actually come to think of it I think Kevin only uased 25 possessions -- he got a freebie on a technical FT and so must have had an +1 three point play in there somewhere.
kennadog
Dog On It!
True, and he played the most minutes on either team.
It is unfair to expect Kevin to make up for all the shortcomings of the team. Mea culpa.
Last edited:
6th
Homer Fan Since 1985
So, since he makes most of his FT's (almost a sure 2 pts per trip down the court), does it bother you that he took a chance for a shot away from someone who is not your team's best shooter. That's what it sound like. I'm just curious. Kevin got us 1/3 of our points and you sound like you are upset with that.
ParniValjak
All-Star
Of course they take away shots because no one else gets to shoot since that possesion ended with Kevin.
I am not conplaining about Kevin taking those shots. Hell I would be pumping the ball to him until his arm fell off.
He had 18 FTA which suggests that he roughly had 9 FGA where he was fouled in the process of shooting to get to shoot the FTs.
Having said that, as far as I am concerned he can shoot all he likes because how far we go will depend on what Martin does for us.
Kingsgurl
Starter
If he uses the possession to score two points, be it from the line or the field he is using that possession for what it is intended for........to score. I'm not sure I follow your fascination on decimating the difference between 2 points for a jump shot and two points from the line, since last I checked, they look the same on the scoreboard. The FACT is Kevin is productive in his possessions. He rarely forces shots, hits a high percentage of the ones he does take and is willing to sacrifice his body to make sure it ends up in a chance for two points for us. Most prolific scorers score a large percentage from the line. It's another facet of the game.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
I am not sure what you are tying to argue here, since you seem to question why I consider them to be no different, and then make the point that they are in fact no different.
My interest is in simply eliminating not only a pernicious (and fairly obvious) error, but one that is the cause of a lot of mistaken assumptions. For instance, if you say Kevin "only" took 17 shots today and gee, that's not enough, that is simply not accurate. He may only have taken 17 FG attempts. But he had another 8-9 possessions where he had the ball and got a chance to score. When you realize that teams only get about 70-80 possessions in a game, that changes the whole argument. Even Kobe Bryant only shoots 21.5FG a game, and only about 26.5 attempts per game when you factor in his FTs.
Saying Kevin scored 32pts on only 17 shots! aggrandizes Kevin, but its simply not accurate. It took him 25-26 possessions to get those 32. Still quite good, but not the same thing. There is absolutely no reason besides having the #1 free throw shooter in the league on your team to differentiate like that. To in effect say that Kevin Martin would be more "efficient" shooting 7-17 for his 32 points (32points on 17 shots!) than a guy who shot 16-26 from the field without FTs (32 points on 26 shots). They both took the same number of possessions to get those points. They are both equally efficient. FTs aren't magic. Getting them takes possessions too. If FTs magically do not count for attempts, but just give you free bonus points, then you can have the ridiculous situation of the most efficient player being one who never actually takes a field goal. come in, shoot 4 Fts, and you have scored 4 points on zero shots! Hard to beat that efficiency.
Last edited:
Entity
Hall of Famer
I understand what you are saying Brick. I hear Jerry saying it all the time "you need to get Kevin more shots" if you take a shot and are fouled and miss the shot that shot attempt does not count but you get to the line and hit both you get 2 points in basically not fg attempt. This is a reach but, in effect Kevin could get fould on every single shot one night (and never hit the and 1) lets say 20 times. Now lets say he hits all 20. Now the stat sheet will show that he is 20-20 from the line but never took a fg attempt. So going by Jerry Reynolds theory he scored 20 points without taking a shot. ???
I guess sometimes you just have to let ignorance take its course.
I guess sometimes you just have to let ignorance take its course.
Brick - technically you are right.
I think the difference might be that Kevin also shoots the technicals as well as gets fouled while handling the ball when he is obviously going to pass and the other team is already over the foul limit.
I think that what some are saying is that since Kevin is very good at scoring and also finishing after being fouled, he should be the focus on more plays and not just a guy shooting FT because of situations like above. He should be in the POSITION to score, like the old back-door cuts with lobs from Bibby for last year - he was getting 1-2 dunks per game that way. When we get a real PG playing to handle the ball, I bet Kevin's FT attempts per game drops a bit and his scoring average stays pretty close to the same.
If that all makes any sense.
Isn't a FT an extension of a possession? If not, the clock wouldn't be stopped. Players go to the line as sort of a redo, since their possession of the ball and possible scoring was hampered by the other team doing something wrong. The FT is an attempt to give the player an opportunity to right that wrong, isn't it?
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
Sure -- that again is largely what I am saying. A pair of FTs results in the end of your possession no less than a FG. At no point anywhere have I tried to argue that a pair of FTs is somehow less than a FG, but rather that they are the same thing at least as far as being a "shot" and using up a possession.
And the end result/point of all this is that Kevin takes a lot more "shots" than he is generally given credit for (or I guess you'd say we get him a lot more shots than we get credit for). Its just that his "shots" are recorded as FTs instead of FGs.
* Note: a pair of FTs is actually worth less than a made FG, in a good FT shooter like Kevin's case about 1.7 to 1.8pts instead of 2pts (.85 or .90 x 2). But given the additional benefits of getting the other team in foul trouble or the penalty its probably roughly equal.
Yeah, but if he's shooting 50% from the floor, then that's about .7-.8 more points per "shot" than making one of every two FG. Not counting 3-pt'ers, of course.
The discussion on “XX points on only XX shots” has been interesting. I never thought about it that much until now, just accepting it as extreme productivity for Kevin, but Brick is generally right. It’s also interesting that the argument he makes says that this stat, Points Per Shot (PPS), the most widely accepted indicator of player scoring efficiency, is basically flawed. Incidentally, Kevin is 7th in the NBA in PPS right now.
In the case he cited, Kevin’s game last night (7-17 FG shooting and 32 points) versus Player X shooting 16-26 with no free throws, it’s hard to argue otherwise. However, had Kevin gotten 7 of his free throws on “and-1’s” (and thus less possessions to score those points), it would be clear that Kevin was way more productive than the guy shooting 16-26. On the flip side, had the Cavs gotten 10 technical fouls, and Kevin shot and made all those, it would be clear that the 16-26 guy without charity tosses was ultimately more productive. So the “truth” lies somewhere in between.
What is very safe to say, despite all this, is that, even if you’re sick of hearing it, PPS is a strong indicator of productivity, although perhaps not the end all, especially when comparing players that have two different kinds of “game”.
You can also say in the hypothetical example that the player who generates, say, 18 FTs from drawing personal fouls has “created” 9 more fouls on the opposition than the guy bombing away with no freebies…almost 2 per every opposing player on the floor. That’s not a measure of scoring productivity, the subject here, but it clearly contributes to the total productivity of the player causing all those fouls. And, as Brick alluded to, the result is you potentially get opposing players to sit earlier in the game and opposing teams in the penalty earlier, both of which could be worth some measure of “points”.
Bottom line, though, is that Kevin continues to be very productive, however you measure it, which is quite an accomplishment through 5 games while also becoming the 2nd leading scorer in the NBA.
In the case he cited, Kevin’s game last night (7-17 FG shooting and 32 points) versus Player X shooting 16-26 with no free throws, it’s hard to argue otherwise. However, had Kevin gotten 7 of his free throws on “and-1’s” (and thus less possessions to score those points), it would be clear that Kevin was way more productive than the guy shooting 16-26. On the flip side, had the Cavs gotten 10 technical fouls, and Kevin shot and made all those, it would be clear that the 16-26 guy without charity tosses was ultimately more productive. So the “truth” lies somewhere in between.
What is very safe to say, despite all this, is that, even if you’re sick of hearing it, PPS is a strong indicator of productivity, although perhaps not the end all, especially when comparing players that have two different kinds of “game”.
You can also say in the hypothetical example that the player who generates, say, 18 FTs from drawing personal fouls has “created” 9 more fouls on the opposition than the guy bombing away with no freebies…almost 2 per every opposing player on the floor. That’s not a measure of scoring productivity, the subject here, but it clearly contributes to the total productivity of the player causing all those fouls. And, as Brick alluded to, the result is you potentially get opposing players to sit earlier in the game and opposing teams in the penalty earlier, both of which could be worth some measure of “points”.
Bottom line, though, is that Kevin continues to be very productive, however you measure it, which is quite an accomplishment through 5 games while also becoming the 2nd leading scorer in the NBA.
kupman
Starter
Yeah, but if he's shooting 50% from the floor, then that's about .7-.8 more points per "shot" than making one of every two FG. Not counting 3-pt'ers, of course.
Thank you for bringing this up. It makes all the difference in the world and the reason why getting 2 FT's in a possession is far superior to just taking a shot.
Think about it, how many points would the Kings score if they got 2 FTs every possession during a game. The answer: a heck of a lot more points than if they never shoot a FT and shoot 44% from the field.
For example: assume 100 possessions during a game for the Kings. They shoot 44% (current average) and never get to the line and they score roughly 88 points. If they get 2 FTs every possession and shoot 85% from the line (current average) they will score 170 points. If Kmart shoots all the FT's we would score 178 points.
Add in the facts that foul totals will work against our opponents and Kmart often makes the shot and gets to the line for a three point play and there is simply no comparison.
Bottom line: getting to the line is far, far superior and Jerry Reynolds is absolutely correct. The ability to score more points on fewer shots is very important.
You go Kmart!
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
You are mistaken on several counts here, as incidentally is Warhawk simply because you both misread what I said.
1) I did not say 2 FTs were worth 1.7 to 1.8 field goal ATTEMPTS. I said they were worth 1.7 to 1.8 field goals MADE.
2) getting to the line is far superior to merely TAKING a shot (at least if you're Kevin and hit a high percentage). It is not far superior to MAKING a shot (hence the discussion of it being worth about 1.7 to 1.8 pts rather than two, but having the advnatage of causing foul trouble). And hence the example of a guy who made 16-26 shots rather than 7-17 with 9 trips to the line. The 16 of 26 example is of a guy who made the shots instead of going to the line, not one taking extra shots.
3) Jerry Reynolds is rarely right beyond those times he refers to himself as an idiot. And his constant screeching about Kevin scoring 25points on only 11 shots (!!) is deceptive at best, flat wrong being closer to the truth. Jerry is not saying that FTs are better than FG attempts, he's saying they are better than FGs made. In fact he is saying they are magically better than anything and everything could be -- a FG still takes a possession to get you points., In Jerry's world, FTs are magic and just get added to your points line without any consideration for the possession you used to score them.
This is not really a hard concept or arcane argument. Its fairly obvious when you think about it. Kevin basically shot the ball, used up our possession in an effort to get points, 25 times last night. Not 17 times. If he doesn't draw the foul on each of those trips to the line, and instead gets the shot off, it uses up the possession either way. If he shoots 1-5 from the field, but 10 for 10 from the line, he has not scored 12 points on only 5 shots as Jerry would screech about. He has scored 12pts on 10 "shots" (possessions). Now going to the line is almost as good as making a FG for Kevin, but even made FGs require attempts -- i.e. you are 2 for 2 from the field or whatever. The same rules apply to points via FTs. You don't just magically get the points without counting the possession you used to get them. That would be like saying that instead oif being 2 for 2 from the field, you were 2 for 0 from the field.
Last edited:
First, I still object to you continually calling Jerry Reynolds an idiot, but that's neither here nor there.
You're choosing to interpret what he's saying one way; a good number of people are choosing to interpret it another way which I happen to think is perfectly valid. There are times when Kevin doesn't even get a shot off because he's fouled and the opposing team is in the penalty, for example. He goes to the line and gets two points WITH THE CLOCK STOPPED, which I think is also relevant. You cannot say it's the same as a shot because we do not know if Kevin would have even taken the shot. It might have gone to Garcia, with Kevin getting an assist, etc.
The crux of the matter is, I believe, that you personally don't like the concept Jerry has advanced because you think it's meaningless. Well, for a lot of us it does have meaning. If a player gets 35 points off 7 of 10 shooting, it means he's doing those extras like getting to the foul line and that's good. It's another indication that Martin is contributing to the team.
Free throws ARE free throws. They are taken with no defender in your face, they're taken without any time expiring on the court. They do not count as a separate possession for the simple fact they're generally the conclusion of a possession, whether a goal has been scored (and a resulting +1 occurs) or not.
Having the ball, for example, at the very beginning of the game, going down, being fouled and getting two points from the line is ONE possession, not two as you seem to feel.
You're choosing to interpret what he's saying one way; a good number of people are choosing to interpret it another way which I happen to think is perfectly valid. There are times when Kevin doesn't even get a shot off because he's fouled and the opposing team is in the penalty, for example. He goes to the line and gets two points WITH THE CLOCK STOPPED, which I think is also relevant. You cannot say it's the same as a shot because we do not know if Kevin would have even taken the shot. It might have gone to Garcia, with Kevin getting an assist, etc.
The crux of the matter is, I believe, that you personally don't like the concept Jerry has advanced because you think it's meaningless. Well, for a lot of us it does have meaning. If a player gets 35 points off 7 of 10 shooting, it means he's doing those extras like getting to the foul line and that's good. It's another indication that Martin is contributing to the team.
Free throws ARE free throws. They are taken with no defender in your face, they're taken without any time expiring on the court. They do not count as a separate possession for the simple fact they're generally the conclusion of a possession, whether a goal has been scored (and a resulting +1 occurs) or not.
Having the ball, for example, at the very beginning of the game, going down, being fouled and getting two points from the line is ONE possession, not two as you seem to feel.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
Your objection here remains patently ridiculous given your own rants about Grant. It is based on nothing more than personal prejudice.
a) I hardly think the clock stoppage is of any real relevance until the very end of the game. If he had shot the ball from the field rather than taken the FTs, the extra time run off the clock might have been 2 seconds before the possession changed anyway, and mid game you have no idea how that is even going to cut. Could benefit the other team as likely as yourself.
b) and you're all fuzzed up here, but again in your own example it is the same as a shot -- Kevin got the "shot", not Cisco. After his "shot" the possession is over and the other team gets it, same as if Cisco shot it.
That makes no sense -- so somehow actually taking into account the costs of those FT attempts would mean you AREN'T accounting for what they are d doing? Hardly. It gives you a far more accurate picture. Jerry's stat isn't meaningless, its blatantly deceptive and intentionally IGNORES the extras that Kevin is doing. And its internally inconsistent. Kevin comes out and shoots 2-10 but gets 16 FTs, and its 20pts on 10 shots! Kevin comes out and shoots 10-10 with no FTs and its 20pts on 10 shots. But quite obviously, I mean COMPLETELY obviously, Kevin has taken far more possessions to get his 20pts in situation 1 than in situation 2.
That...makes no sense. The ONLY place they don't count as a possession is in Jerry's head. They are obviosuly a possession. Not an "extra possession". But a possession, the exact SAME as a posession that ends in a FG attempt. Instead of the possesion ending in a FG attempt, it ends in FT attempts, either way its still a possession.
And as for not being taken in a defenders face, since the consistent comparison is to a shot that was MADE, well it can hardl;y matter wehethr a shot was made in a defender's face or wide open. All that matters is that it was made.
You are very confused. I have NEVER argued that Fts are two possessions. Here is are the arguments:
Me: FGs = 1 possession; FTs = 1 possession
Jerry: FGs = 1 possession; FTs = 0 posssesion
Noboyd has ever said FTs = two possessions. And the only argument that does not make any sesne above is Jerry's.
HighFlyingMonkey
Starter
Except that Jerry is always touting how Kevin scores so many points on so few shots, implying that he is so frugal with posessions. The only problem with that is FTs do take up posessions, which is the point I think Brick is trying to make.
kupman
Starter
...and the point that JR is making is that a possession that ends in a free throw is probably going to more valuable than one that ends in a FG attempt. I say "probably" because players and teams tend to produce points more efficiently from the line than the field.
ways to end a possession from most efficient to least efficient:
1) FT attempt(s)
2) FG attempt
3) TO
The only way #1 and #2 flip flop is when FG% is very high or FT% is very low which is seldom the case.
so yes, FTs end a possession, but it is arguably the best way to end a possession on average, which I think is the point that JR is making with his statistical references.
That's kind of what I was trying to say, but you've said it better.
And Jerry Reynolds isn't the only person to use that particular statistical reference. I've heard it on SportsCenter and I've heard it on other sports shows. But I guess they're all just wrong...
I see it all as another Jerry homer half-truth, like when he talked about blocks as unimportant, since steals are better.
When you get fouled hitting a shot, the FT really is free! And anyone who gets over 2 points per shot based on those alone should be treated as an offensive stud. FT which are taken without hitting a shot do use up possessions, and whether or not that is efficient use of them depends on the player. Kevin uses them well, relative to his chances of hitting a shot; 1.7 pts for 2 FT as opposed to around .9 pts for a FG attempt. Justin shoots over 60% but sucks at FT, so for him it's better to NOT go to the line. When Jerry lumps both sorts of FT together, he's giving us a cheerful and inaccurate oversimplification.
There is some truth to what he's saying, but he's leaving a lot out.
When you get fouled hitting a shot, the FT really is free! And anyone who gets over 2 points per shot based on those alone should be treated as an offensive stud. FT which are taken without hitting a shot do use up possessions, and whether or not that is efficient use of them depends on the player. Kevin uses them well, relative to his chances of hitting a shot; 1.7 pts for 2 FT as opposed to around .9 pts for a FG attempt. Justin shoots over 60% but sucks at FT, so for him it's better to NOT go to the line. When Jerry lumps both sorts of FT together, he's giving us a cheerful and inaccurate oversimplification.
There is some truth to what he's saying, but he's leaving a lot out.
nbrans
All-Star
I understand what Bricklayer is trying to get at, but only in the context of people saying that Kevin doesn't get enough shots -- he's obviously getting "enough" looks now. But when people (including Jerry Reynolds) say "30 points on 14 shots" or whatever, I don't think they're being ignorant. Everyone knows that free throws don't count as a shot attempt and that more possessions were used than 14 shots -- I mean, it's not like you'd hear 30 points on 14 shots and assume that person went 14-14 from the field, including 2-2 from 3.
When people are saying stuff like 30 points on only 14 shots, it's just a demonstration of efficiency. Getting to the line is efficient. Making a high percentage is efficient. Obviously the number of shots don't tell the whole story and it means the person is getting to the line, but when you're getting that many points off of a relatively few number of attempts from the field it's a good thing.
When people are saying stuff like 30 points on only 14 shots, it's just a demonstration of efficiency. Getting to the line is efficient. Making a high percentage is efficient. Obviously the number of shots don't tell the whole story and it means the person is getting to the line, but when you're getting that many points off of a relatively few number of attempts from the field it's a good thing.
Glenn
Hall of Famer
Paraphrasing the above to nail it home I'll add that saying "30 points on only 14 shots" is a shortened way of what normally might require a paragraph to say and therefore not possible during the ebb and flow of a basketball game.
I doubt if anyone takes this kind of statement as anything more than "Kevin is a very good shot and gets to the line a lot." Jerry is a bought and paid for homer and says it much more dramatically. It's his job.
kupman
Starter
Kingsgurl
Starter
See, that's the thing. Obviously, he uses a possession to score the points. That fact SHOULD be obvious enough to go without saying. I have yet to see any scorer in the NBA score anything besides the one or two points afforded by illegal defense calls, technical fouls etc. WITHOUT using a possession.
Now, if we could figure out how to get him to the line without using a possession, we'd be in great shape
Similar threads
- Locked
