This picture was taken right after CLE beat SA yesterday. I should be upset that lebronkeykong knocked my spurs out, but oddly, I am not. If Jimi's prediction is correct, then the #1 seed in the eastern conference has their work cut out for them, and beating my precious spurs is a great first step. SA did a good job of containing Kong(19, 5 and 5 on 7-17 shooting) and if you consider how ICE COLD we were from 3pt range, I don't see it as that bad of a loss. I mean, I honestly was expecting our record to get tarnished sooner than later. With the limited minutes Popavich keeps his guys on at the beginning of every season (wisely, I might add), I was surprised to see SA winning as many games as they did. funfact: only 3 guys on the spurs roster are avging more than 30 min/game and none of them are avging more than 35. The only good team i was able to find with similar stats in this area was DAL, and even they give their starters more min/ game than SA by a considerable margin.Dirk plays more than any SA player, and the guy that gets the least amt of court time for SA (jacque vaughn, whose minutes are ramping up lately quite a bit) still plays 7 min/game (compare to DAL, who has 4 guys that get less than 5 min/game).This turned into a spurs rant. sorry. i'll move on now.
I'm very excited that Jimi can take time out of his 120 hour work week to talk with us about these important issues. And even more excited that he will soon be my neighbor.
I really like your approach to evaluating 3s, Patrick. I think it would be folly to overlook 3s per 48 min, and also I agree that it would be inaccurate to use only that stat. Furthermore, I second your opinion that Barry is #1, but even with these recent and needed changes to our way of looking at 3s, I'm not sure the formula is perfect yet.
Maybe we should take into consideration who is on the shooters team; for instance, Nash and Barry both have several other guys on their teams that are capable of making 3s, whereas Luther isnt so lucky (since tracy has been gone, he's pretty much been the goto guy on 3s, right? can we even mention battier here? ). I don't know- this kind of reminds me of the G Arenas situation. I can't blame him for taking some ill advised shots (since nobody else on his team has a better chance of making it) but that low % is holding him back from really standing out.
If Nash was the only guy on his team that could hit a 3, wouldn't he have more attempts, and most likely, a lower %? And it's not like it's Nash's fault that he's on a team full of shooters- he's just playing the hand he was dealt.
If I'm barking up the wrong tree, let me know. Its just that I think there should be a comprehensive formula to really let us know who's more valuable from long range. any thoughts?
1 comment:
Well, I finally feel compelled to respond to a post within the comments section. Maybe with more people filtering in we'll get more of this.
I think you have a good point about the 3s. I'm always keen on defining things, and once again I think we need to define what a 3 point specialist is.
I would say it is someone whose primary job is to take and make lots of 3s.
However, the offence that you are running can dictate whether or not you really want to take 3s. When you have a good post game, you need spacing...thus you need a good 3 point shooter. However, if you are like Washington, you just shoot whatever comes handy!
But...I'm not sure you should get handicaps because your team's offense doesn't work towards your strengths. Just look at KG's career. We all know he's a monster, but his numbers aren't.
Post a Comment