Jerami Grant is really good.
3rd Qtr 4:09
PHI 55 NYK 64
mreinman wrote:dk7th wrote:F500ONE wrote:Jason Smith another WIDE OPEN 16ft, he made it
i know, with the midrange. power forwards 6'10" with the midrange. could be a trend. still, smith is so soft.
so you're for that shot too? mid range jumpers?
you just need to agree with what he says even if it makes zero sense?
very strange.
no i agree with you... that in a pure math sense 33% from 3 is as good as 50% from 2.
however, you have to look what the opponent will do with 66% of shots missed versus 50% of shots missed. so far as i know we don't have a metric for that.
so in the meantime in a practical/intuitive sense i think that the cutoff point for a successful 3 point regimen is a few tenths shy of 40%.anything lower and i think diminishing returns really kick in.
still strange?
dk7th wrote:mreinman wrote:dk7th wrote:F500ONE wrote:Jason Smith another WIDE OPEN 16ft, he made it
i know, with the midrange. power forwards 6'10" with the midrange. could be a trend. still, smith is so soft.
so you're for that shot too? mid range jumpers?
you just need to agree with what he says even if it makes zero sense?
very strange.
no i agree with you... that in a pure math sense 33% from 3 is as good as 50% from 2.
however, you have to look what the opponent will do with 66% of shots missed versus 50% of shots missed. so far as i know we don't have a metric for that.
so in the meantime in a practical/intuitive sense i think that the cutoff point for a successful 3 point regimen is a few tenths shy of 40%.anything lower and i think diminishing returns really kick in.
still strange?
I think what he wanted you to say was
Smith should have passed up shooting the WIDE OPEN shot
Because of where his location was at on the floor
This is the pure definition of intelligence
But to add to what you say there's also the ROI on 2s vs 3s
Paid in the form of getting teams in foul trouble and in the penalty
Which can force rotations sooner than desired and create mismatches in favor of the offense
More FTA are generated from taking shots inside the arc
I better slow down don't want to make you become dumberer here
3rd Qtr 2:46
PHI 60 NYK 68
nice play by galloway. tough and quick little dude.
ugly shot by hardaway there. what is wrong with this kid?
Lmao there's a party in TFK's garage.
End of 3rd Qtr
PHI 62 NYK 74
dk7th wrote:mreinman wrote:dk7th wrote:F500ONE wrote:Jason Smith another WIDE OPEN 16ft, he made it
i know, with the midrange. power forwards 6'10" with the midrange. could be a trend. still, smith is so soft.
so you're for that shot too? mid range jumpers?
you just need to agree with what he says even if it makes zero sense?
very strange.
no i agree with you... that in a pure math sense 33% from 3 is as good as 50% from 2.
however, you have to look what the opponent will do with 66% of shots missed versus 50% of shots missed. so far as i know we don't have a metric for that.
Can't we just project from their defensive rebounds won and points per possession what they will do with those extra shots?
LOL at Melo trying to get that 4th ast.
Hey DK pass the FISH and chips
After we rip it from the top and let's take it to the bridge
I said a 1/////2 a 1/2/3 GO!!!!!
F500ONE wrote:dk7th wrote:mreinman wrote:dk7th wrote:F500ONE wrote:Jason Smith another WIDE OPEN 16ft, he made it
i know, with the midrange. power forwards 6'10" with the midrange. could be a trend. still, smith is so soft.
so you're for that shot too? mid range jumpers?
you just need to agree with what he says even if it makes zero sense?
very strange.
no i agree with you... that in a pure math sense 33% from 3 is as good as 50% from 2.
however, you have to look what the opponent will do with 66% of shots missed versus 50% of shots missed. so far as i know we don't have a metric for that.
so in the meantime in a practical/intuitive sense i think that the cutoff point for a successful 3 point regimen is a few tenths shy of 40%.anything lower and i think diminishing returns really kick in.
still strange?
I think what he wanted you to say was
Smith should have passed up shooting the WIDE OPEN shot
Because of where his location was at on the floor
This is the pure definition of intelligence
But to add to what you say there's also the ROI on 2s vs 3s
Paid in the form of getting teams in foul trouble and in the penalty
Which can force rotations sooner than desired and create mismatches in favor of the offense
More FTA are generated from taking shots inside the arc
I better slow down don't want to make you become dumberer here
no what you say makes sense as you explained it. i see a meta development in that (1) offenses stressed the 3-ball in order to stretch the defense and create driving lanes; (2) defenses have been geared towards closing out on threes so much that midrange shots are more available; (3) power forwards that are not stretch 4s are being told to work on that midrange.
it isn't a stretch to say that coaching staffs study film and look for any opening to exploit.
adapt or die. humphries did it the other night against the nets, griffin did it on national tv last week, dudes like smith or doing it tonight.
4th Qtr 9:48
PHI 69 NYK 76
THJR is trying to show us his game isn't all TRINKETS
wow melo with a stupid shot and soudemire with another dumb foul
F500ONE wrote:Hey DK pass the FISH and chipsAfter we rip it from the top and let's take it to the bridge
I said a 1/////2 a 1/2/3 GO!!!!!
git on up
git on up
stay on the scene
like a sex machine
oh hi fish who told you we were having a party
markvmc wrote:dk7th wrote:mreinman wrote:dk7th wrote:F500ONE wrote:Jason Smith another WIDE OPEN 16ft, he made it
i know, with the midrange. power forwards 6'10" with the midrange. could be a trend. still, smith is so soft.
so you're for that shot too? mid range jumpers?
you just need to agree with what he says even if it makes zero sense?
very strange.
no i agree with you... that in a pure math sense 33% from 3 is as good as 50% from 2.
however, you have to look what the opponent will do with 66% of shots missed versus 50% of shots missed. so far as i know we don't have a metric for that.
Can't we just project from their defensive rebounds won and points per possession what they will do with those extra shots?
well maybe but where do we find this info? i'd like to see if what i'm asserting is refutable or actually has some traction.
4th Qtr 7:51
PHI 73 NYK 78
