Knicks · Carmelo Anthony's MVP Season and the New York Knicks (page 64)

Bonn1997 wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:http://www.thenbageek.com/articles?tag=W...
Here is a little bit:

And here I have to take a minute to address the myth of shot creation. Let's set the record straight on one thing: shot creation, in an absolute sense, simply does not exist. If you put a group of high schoolers on an NBA court, they may indeed have trouble ever getting a shot off vs. an NBA defense that was trying. But historically in the NBA, every team, no matter how bad, has been able to "create" plenty of field goal attempts. Ask the 1990-91 Denver Nuggets, who managed to lead the NBA in FGA and FGM (by a fairly wide margin) with one of its worst offenses and certainly the worst overall team. Consider also that every team, no matter how bad, always seems to have guys who score in double figures and get off lots of shots. Last year the Bobcats were arguably the worst team in NBA history, yet they had 5 guys who were above average in FGA/48 minutes). Somehow, NBA defenses were not shutting them down so much that they couldn't get shots off.

Therefore, arguments that revolve around statements like "Well, someone has to shoot" are generally not worthwhile in discussing "shot creation". Arguments that a player has value because he can "create his own shot" are not helpful, because almost any NBA wing player can do that. If this skill were rare, we would see big variablities in the FGA of teams from year to year. If this skill were rare, would the Bobcats have 5 guys that could do it? The 11/12 Bobcats?

I think 'shot creation' is poorly defined in the quoted text. When I say, 'Carmelo Anthony is great at creating his own shot' I'm not suggesting that he pulled the FGA out of thin air. What I'm saying is that on a one-on-one situation, he's better at getting a high percentage shot off relative to his peers. Kobe, Wade, Durant, Pierce, etc. fit this bill. Steve Novak, while an excellent shooter, is not in this class of 'creating his own shot'. I don't know a single person that has ever defined 'shot creation' as '"create" plenty of field goal attempts'.

If you're now changing the topic to creating high percentage shots, then yes that's important. Career TS% is the best indicator of the quality of your shots though. Obviously the frequency of your shots is important - getting lots of high quality shots is better than only a few. Someone who gets a lot of them will have higher win shares and wins produced though. The point is, you've now simply changed the topic to something that the sabermetrics do not overlook.

define shot creation for me then, because what I'm saying it's not defined properly in the quoted text

Bonn1997 wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:http://www.thenbageek.com/articles?tag=W...
Here is a little bit:

And here I have to take a minute to address the myth of shot creation. Let's set the record straight on one thing: shot creation, in an absolute sense, simply does not exist. If you put a group of high schoolers on an NBA court, they may indeed have trouble ever getting a shot off vs. an NBA defense that was trying. But historically in the NBA, every team, no matter how bad, has been able to "create" plenty of field goal attempts. Ask the 1990-91 Denver Nuggets, who managed to lead the NBA in FGA and FGM (by a fairly wide margin) with one of its worst offenses and certainly the worst overall team. Consider also that every team, no matter how bad, always seems to have guys who score in double figures and get off lots of shots. Last year the Bobcats were arguably the worst team in NBA history, yet they had 5 guys who were above average in FGA/48 minutes). Somehow, NBA defenses were not shutting them down so much that they couldn't get shots off.

Therefore, arguments that revolve around statements like "Well, someone has to shoot" are generally not worthwhile in discussing "shot creation". Arguments that a player has value because he can "create his own shot" are not helpful, because almost any NBA wing player can do that. If this skill were rare, we would see big variablities in the FGA of teams from year to year. If this skill were rare, would the Bobcats have 5 guys that could do it? The 11/12 Bobcats?

I think 'shot creation' is poorly defined in the quoted text. When I say, 'Carmelo Anthony is great at creating his own shot' I'm not suggesting that he pulled the FGA out of thin air. What I'm saying is that on a one-on-one situation, he's better at getting a high percentage shot off relative to his peers. Kobe, Wade, Durant, Pierce, etc. fit this bill. Steve Novak, while an excellent shooter, is not in this class of 'creating his own shot'. I don't know a single person that has ever defined 'shot creation' as '"create" plenty of field goal attempts'.

If you're now changing the topic to creating high percentage shots, then yes that's important. Career TS% is the best indicator of the quality of your shots though. Obviously the frequency of your shots is important - getting lots of high quality shots is better than only a few. Someone who gets a lot of them will have higher win shares and wins produced though. The point is, you've now simply changed the topic to something that the sabermetrics do not overlook.

well ... back to my point

is there a sabermetric that tracks the high percentages of shots / makes taken in clutch situations and tie that into WS and WP? Maybe it does, I am just asking.

I think that would/should be weighted higher as far as producing wins.

IronWillGiroud wrote:Creating your own shot is just having the balls to get a shot up. That's the difference between a guy that will shoot 41 times and not give a fuck if he makes 18, it's because he's the guy that's taking it all on his shoulders. Most guys in NBA can create some sort of shot, they just don't have the balls, that's why Melo is a Superstar

that is far from true!

Felton has the balls, he is just bad at creating a high pct shot - oh ... and he also can't shoot

Novak can't create a shot at all

Kidd at this point really can't create his own shot

Chandler can't do anything other than dunk off a pass - zero creation skills

JR can create his own shot though his decision making in regards to the shot he chooses is often flawed

SupremeCommander wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:http://www.thenbageek.com/articles?tag=W...
Here is a little bit:

And here I have to take a minute to address the myth of shot creation. Let's set the record straight on one thing: shot creation, in an absolute sense, simply does not exist. If you put a group of high schoolers on an NBA court, they may indeed have trouble ever getting a shot off vs. an NBA defense that was trying. But historically in the NBA, every team, no matter how bad, has been able to "create" plenty of field goal attempts. Ask the 1990-91 Denver Nuggets, who managed to lead the NBA in FGA and FGM (by a fairly wide margin) with one of its worst offenses and certainly the worst overall team. Consider also that every team, no matter how bad, always seems to have guys who score in double figures and get off lots of shots. Last year the Bobcats were arguably the worst team in NBA history, yet they had 5 guys who were above average in FGA/48 minutes). Somehow, NBA defenses were not shutting them down so much that they couldn't get shots off.

Therefore, arguments that revolve around statements like "Well, someone has to shoot" are generally not worthwhile in discussing "shot creation". Arguments that a player has value because he can "create his own shot" are not helpful, because almost any NBA wing player can do that. If this skill were rare, we would see big variablities in the FGA of teams from year to year. If this skill were rare, would the Bobcats have 5 guys that could do it? The 11/12 Bobcats?

I think 'shot creation' is poorly defined in the quoted text. When I say, 'Carmelo Anthony is great at creating his own shot' I'm not suggesting that he pulled the FGA out of thin air. What I'm saying is that on a one-on-one situation, he's better at getting a high percentage shot off relative to his peers. Kobe, Wade, Durant, Pierce, etc. fit this bill. Steve Novak, while an excellent shooter, is not in this class of 'creating his own shot'. I don't know a single person that has ever defined 'shot creation' as '"create" plenty of field goal attempts'.

If you're now changing the topic to creating high percentage shots, then yes that's important. Career TS% is the best indicator of the quality of your shots though. Obviously the frequency of your shots is important - getting lots of high quality shots is better than only a few. Someone who gets a lot of them will have higher win shares and wins produced though. The point is, you've now simply changed the topic to something that the sabermetrics do not overlook.

define shot creation for me then, because what I'm saying it's not defined properly in the quoted text

A little context here might help first. Usually people skeptical of the advanced stats say the stats overlook "shot creation," although they never define it. They could mean one of two things: A) the ability to get off high percentage shots (in which case they are talking about something that the advanced stats do take into account, and their argument is self-contradictory) or B) the ability merely to get off FGAs regardless of whether they go in (which, as indicated in the above discussion, is not an important ability).

mrKnickShot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:http://www.thenbageek.com/articles?tag=W...
Here is a little bit:

And here I have to take a minute to address the myth of shot creation. Let's set the record straight on one thing: shot creation, in an absolute sense, simply does not exist. If you put a group of high schoolers on an NBA court, they may indeed have trouble ever getting a shot off vs. an NBA defense that was trying. But historically in the NBA, every team, no matter how bad, has been able to "create" plenty of field goal attempts. Ask the 1990-91 Denver Nuggets, who managed to lead the NBA in FGA and FGM (by a fairly wide margin) with one of its worst offenses and certainly the worst overall team. Consider also that every team, no matter how bad, always seems to have guys who score in double figures and get off lots of shots. Last year the Bobcats were arguably the worst team in NBA history, yet they had 5 guys who were above average in FGA/48 minutes). Somehow, NBA defenses were not shutting them down so much that they couldn't get shots off.

Therefore, arguments that revolve around statements like "Well, someone has to shoot" are generally not worthwhile in discussing "shot creation". Arguments that a player has value because he can "create his own shot" are not helpful, because almost any NBA wing player can do that. If this skill were rare, we would see big variablities in the FGA of teams from year to year. If this skill were rare, would the Bobcats have 5 guys that could do it? The 11/12 Bobcats?

I think 'shot creation' is poorly defined in the quoted text. When I say, 'Carmelo Anthony is great at creating his own shot' I'm not suggesting that he pulled the FGA out of thin air. What I'm saying is that on a one-on-one situation, he's better at getting a high percentage shot off relative to his peers. Kobe, Wade, Durant, Pierce, etc. fit this bill. Steve Novak, while an excellent shooter, is not in this class of 'creating his own shot'. I don't know a single person that has ever defined 'shot creation' as '"create" plenty of field goal attempts'.

If you're now changing the topic to creating high percentage shots, then yes that's important. Career TS% is the best indicator of the quality of your shots though. Obviously the frequency of your shots is important - getting lots of high quality shots is better than only a few. Someone who gets a lot of them will have higher win shares and wins produced though. The point is, you've now simply changed the topic to something that the sabermetrics do not overlook.

well ... back to my point

is there a sabermetric that tracks the high percentages of shots / makes taken in clutch situations and tie that into WS and WP? Maybe it does, I am just asking.

I think that would/should be weighted higher as far as producing wins.

Sabermetricians tend not to do that because the points count the same regardless of the time they are scored at. You could certainly define clutch and then calculate people's TS%s in the clutch. You could even calculate their Wins Produced or Win Shares during clutch points like they final six minutes of close games. I think several cognitive biases can help to explain why people overvalue whatever a player contributes close to the end of the game and devalue what occurs earlier though.

mrKnickShot wrote:

IronWillGiroud wrote:Creating your own shot is just having the balls to get a shot up. That's the difference between a guy that will shoot 41 times and not give a fuck if he makes 18, it's because he's the guy that's taking it all on his shoulders. Most guys in NBA can create some sort of shot, they just don't have the balls, that's why Melo is a Superstar

that is far from true!

Felton has the balls, he is just bad at creating a high pct shot - oh ... and he also can't shoot

Novak can't create a shot at all

Kidd at this point really can't create his own shot

Chandler can't do anything other than dunk off a pass - zero creation skills

JR can create his own shot though his decision making in regards to the shot he chooses is often flawed

Good passes create shots too, you know? Helping the spacing on the floor creates shots too. People seem to have a misconception that the guy who does the most dribbling is the one creating the shots.

Bonn1997 wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:http://www.thenbageek.com/articles?tag=W...
Here is a little bit:

And here I have to take a minute to address the myth of shot creation. Let's set the record straight on one thing: shot creation, in an absolute sense, simply does not exist. If you put a group of high schoolers on an NBA court, they may indeed have trouble ever getting a shot off vs. an NBA defense that was trying. But historically in the NBA, every team, no matter how bad, has been able to "create" plenty of field goal attempts. Ask the 1990-91 Denver Nuggets, who managed to lead the NBA in FGA and FGM (by a fairly wide margin) with one of its worst offenses and certainly the worst overall team. Consider also that every team, no matter how bad, always seems to have guys who score in double figures and get off lots of shots. Last year the Bobcats were arguably the worst team in NBA history, yet they had 5 guys who were above average in FGA/48 minutes). Somehow, NBA defenses were not shutting them down so much that they couldn't get shots off.

Therefore, arguments that revolve around statements like "Well, someone has to shoot" are generally not worthwhile in discussing "shot creation". Arguments that a player has value because he can "create his own shot" are not helpful, because almost any NBA wing player can do that. If this skill were rare, we would see big variablities in the FGA of teams from year to year. If this skill were rare, would the Bobcats have 5 guys that could do it? The 11/12 Bobcats?

I think 'shot creation' is poorly defined in the quoted text. When I say, 'Carmelo Anthony is great at creating his own shot' I'm not suggesting that he pulled the FGA out of thin air. What I'm saying is that on a one-on-one situation, he's better at getting a high percentage shot off relative to his peers. Kobe, Wade, Durant, Pierce, etc. fit this bill. Steve Novak, while an excellent shooter, is not in this class of 'creating his own shot'. I don't know a single person that has ever defined 'shot creation' as '"create" plenty of field goal attempts'.

If you're now changing the topic to creating high percentage shots, then yes that's important. Career TS% is the best indicator of the quality of your shots though. Obviously the frequency of your shots is important - getting lots of high quality shots is better than only a few. Someone who gets a lot of them will have higher win shares and wins produced though. The point is, you've now simply changed the topic to something that the sabermetrics do not overlook.

define shot creation for me then, because what I'm saying it's not defined properly in the quoted text

A little context here might help first. Usually people skeptical of the advanced stats say the stats overlook "shot creation," although they never define it. They could mean one of two things: A) the ability to get off high percentage shots (in which case they are talking about something that the advanced stats do take into account, and their argument is self-contradictory) or B) the ability merely to get off FGAs regardless of whether they go in (which, as indicated in the above discussion, is not an important ability).

if people are actually using definition B then I agree with the quoted entirely - I'm just saying I've never heard it used in that context before

and, tangentially and for what it's worth, I actually like these advanced stats (I have my masters in financial engineering) and I'm an avid follower of Nate Silver's political work, I just these advanced stats are commonly misapplied by the general public. I think advanced stats are great for making tactical decisions (matchups/personnel decision such as 'should we pick up player A or player B?') but are worthless regarding setting a strategy. Just my $.02

Bonn1997 wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:http://www.thenbageek.com/articles?tag=W...
Here is a little bit:

And here I have to take a minute to address the myth of shot creation. Let's set the record straight on one thing: shot creation, in an absolute sense, simply does not exist. If you put a group of high schoolers on an NBA court, they may indeed have trouble ever getting a shot off vs. an NBA defense that was trying. But historically in the NBA, every team, no matter how bad, has been able to "create" plenty of field goal attempts. Ask the 1990-91 Denver Nuggets, who managed to lead the NBA in FGA and FGM (by a fairly wide margin) with one of its worst offenses and certainly the worst overall team. Consider also that every team, no matter how bad, always seems to have guys who score in double figures and get off lots of shots. Last year the Bobcats were arguably the worst team in NBA history, yet they had 5 guys who were above average in FGA/48 minutes). Somehow, NBA defenses were not shutting them down so much that they couldn't get shots off.

Therefore, arguments that revolve around statements like "Well, someone has to shoot" are generally not worthwhile in discussing "shot creation". Arguments that a player has value because he can "create his own shot" are not helpful, because almost any NBA wing player can do that. If this skill were rare, we would see big variablities in the FGA of teams from year to year. If this skill were rare, would the Bobcats have 5 guys that could do it? The 11/12 Bobcats?

I think 'shot creation' is poorly defined in the quoted text. When I say, 'Carmelo Anthony is great at creating his own shot' I'm not suggesting that he pulled the FGA out of thin air. What I'm saying is that on a one-on-one situation, he's better at getting a high percentage shot off relative to his peers. Kobe, Wade, Durant, Pierce, etc. fit this bill. Steve Novak, while an excellent shooter, is not in this class of 'creating his own shot'. I don't know a single person that has ever defined 'shot creation' as '"create" plenty of field goal attempts'.

If you're now changing the topic to creating high percentage shots, then yes that's important. Career TS% is the best indicator of the quality of your shots though. Obviously the frequency of your shots is important - getting lots of high quality shots is better than only a few. Someone who gets a lot of them will have higher win shares and wins produced though. The point is, you've now simply changed the topic to something that the sabermetrics do not overlook.

well ... back to my point

is there a sabermetric that tracks the high percentages of shots / makes taken in clutch situations and tie that into WS and WP? Maybe it does, I am just asking.

I think that would/should be weighted higher as far as producing wins.

Sabermetricians tend not to do that because the points count the same regardless of the time they are scored at. You could certainly define clutch and then calculate people's TS%s in the clutch. You could even calculate their Wins Produced or Win Shares during clutch points like they final six minutes of close games. I think several cognitive biases can help to explain why people overvalue whatever a player contributes close to the end of the game and devalue what occurs earlier though.

that is where I think this thinking is flawed.

Are you saying that Jordan hitting a jumper over Byron Russell with seconds to play to win a ring is not far more important to WP's than a 2nd quarter bucket in a seesaw game?

SupremeCommander wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:http://www.thenbageek.com/articles?tag=W...
Here is a little bit:

And here I have to take a minute to address the myth of shot creation. Let's set the record straight on one thing: shot creation, in an absolute sense, simply does not exist. If you put a group of high schoolers on an NBA court, they may indeed have trouble ever getting a shot off vs. an NBA defense that was trying. But historically in the NBA, every team, no matter how bad, has been able to "create" plenty of field goal attempts. Ask the 1990-91 Denver Nuggets, who managed to lead the NBA in FGA and FGM (by a fairly wide margin) with one of its worst offenses and certainly the worst overall team. Consider also that every team, no matter how bad, always seems to have guys who score in double figures and get off lots of shots. Last year the Bobcats were arguably the worst team in NBA history, yet they had 5 guys who were above average in FGA/48 minutes). Somehow, NBA defenses were not shutting them down so much that they couldn't get shots off.

Therefore, arguments that revolve around statements like "Well, someone has to shoot" are generally not worthwhile in discussing "shot creation". Arguments that a player has value because he can "create his own shot" are not helpful, because almost any NBA wing player can do that. If this skill were rare, we would see big variablities in the FGA of teams from year to year. If this skill were rare, would the Bobcats have 5 guys that could do it? The 11/12 Bobcats?

I think 'shot creation' is poorly defined in the quoted text. When I say, 'Carmelo Anthony is great at creating his own shot' I'm not suggesting that he pulled the FGA out of thin air. What I'm saying is that on a one-on-one situation, he's better at getting a high percentage shot off relative to his peers. Kobe, Wade, Durant, Pierce, etc. fit this bill. Steve Novak, while an excellent shooter, is not in this class of 'creating his own shot'. I don't know a single person that has ever defined 'shot creation' as '"create" plenty of field goal attempts'.

If you're now changing the topic to creating high percentage shots, then yes that's important. Career TS% is the best indicator of the quality of your shots though. Obviously the frequency of your shots is important - getting lots of high quality shots is better than only a few. Someone who gets a lot of them will have higher win shares and wins produced though. The point is, you've now simply changed the topic to something that the sabermetrics do not overlook.

define shot creation for me then, because what I'm saying it's not defined properly in the quoted text

A little context here might help first. Usually people skeptical of the advanced stats say the stats overlook "shot creation," although they never define it. They could mean one of two things: A) the ability to get off high percentage shots (in which case they are talking about something that the advanced stats do take into account, and their argument is self-contradictory) or B) the ability merely to get off FGAs regardless of whether they go in (which, as indicated in the above discussion, is not an important ability).

if people are actually using definition B then I agree with the quoted entirely - I'm just saying I've never heard it used in that context before

and, tangentially and for what it's worth, I actually like these advanced stats (I have my masters in financial engineering) and I'm an avid follower of Nate Silver's political work, I just these advanced stats are commonly misapplied by the general public. I think advanced stats are great for making tactical decisions (matchups/personnel decision such as 'should we pick up player A or player B?') but are worthless regarding setting a strategy. Just my $.02

That's cool. Silver did a great job with the 2012 and 2008 elections.

mrKnickShot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:http://www.thenbageek.com/articles?tag=W...
Here is a little bit:

And here I have to take a minute to address the myth of shot creation. Let's set the record straight on one thing: shot creation, in an absolute sense, simply does not exist. If you put a group of high schoolers on an NBA court, they may indeed have trouble ever getting a shot off vs. an NBA defense that was trying. But historically in the NBA, every team, no matter how bad, has been able to "create" plenty of field goal attempts. Ask the 1990-91 Denver Nuggets, who managed to lead the NBA in FGA and FGM (by a fairly wide margin) with one of its worst offenses and certainly the worst overall team. Consider also that every team, no matter how bad, always seems to have guys who score in double figures and get off lots of shots. Last year the Bobcats were arguably the worst team in NBA history, yet they had 5 guys who were above average in FGA/48 minutes). Somehow, NBA defenses were not shutting them down so much that they couldn't get shots off.

Therefore, arguments that revolve around statements like "Well, someone has to shoot" are generally not worthwhile in discussing "shot creation". Arguments that a player has value because he can "create his own shot" are not helpful, because almost any NBA wing player can do that. If this skill were rare, we would see big variablities in the FGA of teams from year to year. If this skill were rare, would the Bobcats have 5 guys that could do it? The 11/12 Bobcats?

I think 'shot creation' is poorly defined in the quoted text. When I say, 'Carmelo Anthony is great at creating his own shot' I'm not suggesting that he pulled the FGA out of thin air. What I'm saying is that on a one-on-one situation, he's better at getting a high percentage shot off relative to his peers. Kobe, Wade, Durant, Pierce, etc. fit this bill. Steve Novak, while an excellent shooter, is not in this class of 'creating his own shot'. I don't know a single person that has ever defined 'shot creation' as '"create" plenty of field goal attempts'.

If you're now changing the topic to creating high percentage shots, then yes that's important. Career TS% is the best indicator of the quality of your shots though. Obviously the frequency of your shots is important - getting lots of high quality shots is better than only a few. Someone who gets a lot of them will have higher win shares and wins produced though. The point is, you've now simply changed the topic to something that the sabermetrics do not overlook.

well ... back to my point

is there a sabermetric that tracks the high percentages of shots / makes taken in clutch situations and tie that into WS and WP? Maybe it does, I am just asking.

I think that would/should be weighted higher as far as producing wins.

Sabermetricians tend not to do that because the points count the same regardless of the time they are scored at. You could certainly define clutch and then calculate people's TS%s in the clutch. You could even calculate their Wins Produced or Win Shares during clutch points like they final six minutes of close games. I think several cognitive biases can help to explain why people overvalue whatever a player contributes close to the end of the game and devalue what occurs earlier though.

that is where I think this thinking is flawed.

Are you saying that Jordan hitting a jumper over Byron Russell with seconds to play to win a ring is not far more important to WP's than a 2nd quarter bucket in a seesaw game?

Assuming a few more details (both were 2 pointers, there were no fouls), then yes, they're both two points. 2 = 2

Bonn1997 wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:

IronWillGiroud wrote:Creating your own shot is just having the balls to get a shot up. That's the difference between a guy that will shoot 41 times and not give a fuck if he makes 18, it's because he's the guy that's taking it all on his shoulders. Most guys in NBA can create some sort of shot, they just don't have the balls, that's why Melo is a Superstar

that is far from true!

Felton has the balls, he is just bad at creating a high pct shot - oh ... and he also can't shoot

Novak can't create a shot at all

Kidd at this point really can't create his own shot

Chandler can't do anything other than dunk off a pass - zero creation skills

JR can create his own shot though his decision making in regards to the shot he chooses is often flawed

Good passes create shots too, you know? Helping the spacing on the floor creates shots too. People seem to have a misconception that the guy who does the most dribbling is the one creating the shots.

Of course good passes create good shots! Still, someone needs to be able to beat their man at some point - force a double team. This is how the Lakers and the Spurs won so much. Duncan constantly getting doubled and passing out to open men. Shaq too.

Miami won because Lebron kept beating his man and forcing help to arrive.

Not every team has players who can do this.

Running a Princeton or Triangle offense will be worthless without star players who cause mismatches.

Teams fear Melo in ISO because its the highest pct mismatch and (can) create the highest pct shot if executed correctly. In the Miami series, it was the only thing that remotely worked. Their defense was stifling and we could not get any penetration with our horrible guards.

There is a reason why players get max money even when they do not have the top TS, WS or WP. You just believe that NBA GM's have this wrong?

Bonn1997 wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:http://www.thenbageek.com/articles?tag=W...
Here is a little bit:

And here I have to take a minute to address the myth of shot creation. Let's set the record straight on one thing: shot creation, in an absolute sense, simply does not exist. If you put a group of high schoolers on an NBA court, they may indeed have trouble ever getting a shot off vs. an NBA defense that was trying. But historically in the NBA, every team, no matter how bad, has been able to "create" plenty of field goal attempts. Ask the 1990-91 Denver Nuggets, who managed to lead the NBA in FGA and FGM (by a fairly wide margin) with one of its worst offenses and certainly the worst overall team. Consider also that every team, no matter how bad, always seems to have guys who score in double figures and get off lots of shots. Last year the Bobcats were arguably the worst team in NBA history, yet they had 5 guys who were above average in FGA/48 minutes). Somehow, NBA defenses were not shutting them down so much that they couldn't get shots off.

Therefore, arguments that revolve around statements like "Well, someone has to shoot" are generally not worthwhile in discussing "shot creation". Arguments that a player has value because he can "create his own shot" are not helpful, because almost any NBA wing player can do that. If this skill were rare, we would see big variablities in the FGA of teams from year to year. If this skill were rare, would the Bobcats have 5 guys that could do it? The 11/12 Bobcats?

I think 'shot creation' is poorly defined in the quoted text. When I say, 'Carmelo Anthony is great at creating his own shot' I'm not suggesting that he pulled the FGA out of thin air. What I'm saying is that on a one-on-one situation, he's better at getting a high percentage shot off relative to his peers. Kobe, Wade, Durant, Pierce, etc. fit this bill. Steve Novak, while an excellent shooter, is not in this class of 'creating his own shot'. I don't know a single person that has ever defined 'shot creation' as '"create" plenty of field goal attempts'.

If you're now changing the topic to creating high percentage shots, then yes that's important. Career TS% is the best indicator of the quality of your shots though. Obviously the frequency of your shots is important - getting lots of high quality shots is better than only a few. Someone who gets a lot of them will have higher win shares and wins produced though. The point is, you've now simply changed the topic to something that the sabermetrics do not overlook.

well ... back to my point

is there a sabermetric that tracks the high percentages of shots / makes taken in clutch situations and tie that into WS and WP? Maybe it does, I am just asking.

I think that would/should be weighted higher as far as producing wins.

Sabermetricians tend not to do that because the points count the same regardless of the time they are scored at. You could certainly define clutch and then calculate people's TS%s in the clutch. You could even calculate their Wins Produced or Win Shares during clutch points like they final six minutes of close games. I think several cognitive biases can help to explain why people overvalue whatever a player contributes close to the end of the game and devalue what occurs earlier though.

that is where I think this thinking is flawed.

Are you saying that Jordan hitting a jumper over Byron Russell with seconds to play to win a ring is not far more important to WP's than a 2nd quarter bucket in a seesaw game?

Assuming a few more details (both were 2 pointers, there were no fouls), then yes, they're both two points. 2 = 2

exactly!!

GM's, scouts and knowledgeable fans would not see this as plainly black and white.

A home run in extra innings in a tie game is not the same as a home run in the first inning in a 0-0 game even though 1 = 1. At least not to me.

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Albert Einstein

when a player tries to go one on one and gets doubled, then puts up a shot instead of hitting the open man, the chances of success are going to be low.

so if you say a player has "created a shot" by forcing it over 2 players by definition that is insane.

in the 2008 finals this is exactly what bryant did against boston. we should closely monitor if carmelo does the same.

it is less the case if a player puts a shot up over a single defender-- but the provision should be that the type of shot he creates is a natural part of his arsenal. otherwise it is a forced shot and a low percentage shot. not insane but just dumb.

dk7th wrote:"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Albert Einstein

when a player tries to go one on one and gets doubled, then puts up a shot instead of hitting the open man, the chances of success are going to be low.

so if you say a player has "created a shot" by forcing it over 2 players by definition that is insane.

in the 2008 finals this is exactly what bryant did against boston. we should closely monitor if carmelo does the same.

it is less the case if a player puts a shot up over a single defender-- but the provision should be that the type of shot he creates is a natural part of his arsenal. otherwise it is a forced shot and a low percentage shot. not insane but just dumb.

I absolutely agree that he should make that pass when the double comes and at times does not but some of what Bonn was saying is just wrong.

Shot creation is overvalued?

Clutch stats should be be valued higher than a non clutch situation?

mrKnickShot wrote:

dk7th wrote:"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Albert Einstein

when a player tries to go one on one and gets doubled, then puts up a shot instead of hitting the open man, the chances of success are going to be low.

so if you say a player has "created a shot" by forcing it over 2 players by definition that is insane.

in the 2008 finals this is exactly what bryant did against boston. we should closely monitor if carmelo does the same.

it is less the case if a player puts a shot up over a single defender-- but the provision should be that the type of shot he creates is a natural part of his arsenal. otherwise it is a forced shot and a low percentage shot. not insane but just dumb.

I absolutely agree that he should make that pass when the double comes and at times does not but some of what Bonn was saying is just wrong.

Shot creation is overvalued?

Clutch stats should be be valued higher than a non clutch situation?

lets agree that we can't speak of shot creation of itself. a value needs to be assigned to every shot. and then afterwards we can speak of context, clutch or otherwise.

i think almost everyone agrees that the worst shot is a low percentage shotor a shot with the lowest rate of return, such as a long 2. and then there's a shot forced over more than one defender-- unless you're shaquille o'neal, and even then they invented hack-a-shaq for this situation. i guess they may have done the same with wilt. of course shaq became a great passer after working with pete newell at his big man camp and that is exactly the time when the lakers started winning.

either way, a long 2 or a shot over two defenders have to be considered low percentage or bad shots, respectively.

so if a player takes a shot-- creates a shot-- in those situations, then of course "shot creation" is overvalued.

dk7th wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:

dk7th wrote:"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Albert Einstein

when a player tries to go one on one and gets doubled, then puts up a shot instead of hitting the open man, the chances of success are going to be low.

so if you say a player has "created a shot" by forcing it over 2 players by definition that is insane.

in the 2008 finals this is exactly what bryant did against boston. we should closely monitor if carmelo does the same.

it is less the case if a player puts a shot up over a single defender-- but the provision should be that the type of shot he creates is a natural part of his arsenal. otherwise it is a forced shot and a low percentage shot. not insane but just dumb.

I absolutely agree that he should make that pass when the double comes and at times does not but some of what Bonn was saying is just wrong.

Shot creation is overvalued?

Clutch stats should be be valued higher than a non clutch situation?

lets agree that we can't speak of shot creation of itself. a value needs to be assigned to every shot. and then afterwards we can speak of context, clutch or otherwise.

i think almost everyone agrees that the worst shot is a low percentage shotor a shot with the lowest rate of return, such as a long 2. and then there's a shot forced over more than one defender-- unless you're shaquille o'neal, and even then they invented hack-a-shaq for this situation. i guess they may have done the same with wilt. of course shaq became a great passer after working with pete newell at his big man camp and that is exactly the time when the lakers started winning.

either way, a long 2 or a shot over two defenders have to be considered low percentage or bad shots, respectively.

so if a player takes a shot-- creates a shot-- in those situations, then of course "shot creation" is overvalued.

I do agree with that. However, if a shooter hits a long to at a high rate (> 45 pct) then it is a good shot (for him). It will also force contesting and open up the lane.

mrKnickShot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:

dk7th wrote:"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Albert Einstein

when a player tries to go one on one and gets doubled, then puts up a shot instead of hitting the open man, the chances of success are going to be low.

so if you say a player has "created a shot" by forcing it over 2 players by definition that is insane.

in the 2008 finals this is exactly what bryant did against boston. we should closely monitor if carmelo does the same.

it is less the case if a player puts a shot up over a single defender-- but the provision should be that the type of shot he creates is a natural part of his arsenal. otherwise it is a forced shot and a low percentage shot. not insane but just dumb.

I absolutely agree that he should make that pass when the double comes and at times does not but some of what Bonn was saying is just wrong.

Shot creation is overvalued?

Clutch stats should be be valued higher than a non clutch situation?

lets agree that we can't speak of shot creation of itself. a value needs to be assigned to every shot. and then afterwards we can speak of context, clutch or otherwise.

i think almost everyone agrees that the worst shot is a low percentage shotor a shot with the lowest rate of return, such as a long 2. and then there's a shot forced over more than one defender-- unless you're shaquille o'neal, and even then they invented hack-a-shaq for this situation. i guess they may have done the same with wilt. of course shaq became a great passer after working with pete newell at his big man camp and that is exactly the time when the lakers started winning.

either way, a long 2 or a shot over two defenders have to be considered low percentage or bad shots, respectively.

so if a player takes a shot-- creates a shot-- in those situations, then of course "shot creation" is overvalued.

I do agree with that. However, if a shooter hits a long to at a high rate (> 45 pct) then it is a good shot (for him). It will also force contesting and open up the lane.

i speak in general terms here with the 2-point shot. i have read many times that, generally, the least valuable shot in basketball is the long 2. you are not close enough for a good shot and not far enough for a 3. i think the experts really are speaking of rate of return for the most part. guess who is known for taking a lot of long 2s? carmelo anthony. that's why it's good for him to be shooting from 3 so well thus far. but trouble brews as soon as that 3 ceases to fall at the present clip.

i don't know where the cutoff point is for the 3 but i am thinking anything less than 38% is probably not good for the team, even if merely shooting 35% is the league average. it's about long rebounds leading to semi-breaks and fast breaks for the opponent. if he can manage to average anything over 38% for the season that would be good, i think.

IronWillGiroud wrote:Creating your own shot is just having the balls to get a shot up. That's the difference between a guy that will shoot 41 times and not give a fuck if he makes 18, it's because he's the guy that's taking it all on his shoulders. Most guys in NBA can create some sort of shot, they just don't have the balls, that's why Melo is a Superstar

he should give a fuck if he wants to win titles. if the player has the balls to chuck up any old shot then he is by definition mindless. can't have it both ways.

Merry Christmas everyone!

dk7th wrote:Merry Christmas everyone!

Christmas sucks so bad now, I refuse your wish of merry

mrKnickShot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

mrKnickShot wrote:

tkf wrote:

cooch2584 wrote:

Hersports85 wrote:

TeamBall wrote:

Hersports85 wrote:What's the argument now against Melo? Seriously, it's hard to keep up with all the attempts to discredit every single positive stat or improvement.

Adrenaline 3s apparently

LMAOOOOOOOO can't be serious. This is beginning to become borderline pathetic.

It started as a "heatck" post and tkf and dk7th turned it into a % troll talk.Tkf, wheres your buddy dk7th?? Maybe you should find another butt buddy.

this is simple.. dk doesn't believe in heat check 3's.... moreso if you are not good shooting threes for your career... so of course % has to come into play, otherwise how do you show if someone is a good shooter from three? cooch wants to win an argument because he says so..... that just won't fly, and when faced with reason, he resorts to this type of behavior that is not conducive to having a reasonable conversation....

edit: dk also mentioned that although no one should be taking heat check 3's, if you do so, it is somewhat more understandable if you are a good three point shooter for your career.. ie: Nash..

DK is far smarter than you.

I don't believe he needs you to speak on his behalf. Its kind of disrespectful to him to have his well thought out comments to be regurgitated and narrated by ...

well if i am far smarter than tkf, then what does it mean if i sincerely say tkf is far smarter than me?

actually mrknickshot i need all the help i can get regardless. because with cooch it "gets late really early out there" and "if people don't want to come to the ballpark you can't stop them." my apologies to mr. berra. it's so bad with cooch i am wondering if this isn't an act of some sort. kind of like jerry stiller in the festivus episodes. he is into the "listing of grievances" and whatnot. but hey i'm willing to play along for now.

its not a conversation worth having dk.

tkf is the same way. No substance just ad hominem attacks are spaghetti/circle logic. Hard to argue with someone who is controlled by emotion.

Anyway. Carmelo is having a bad game - to many heatcheck IMHO

lol aren't you doing exactly what you accuse me of.. funny because i usually back up what I say with facts or reasoning... you guys just don't like it, so you label it trolling, attacking..... yet I don't engage in mindless name calling and always welcome a healthy debate...