I'm not sure if I get your arbitrary use of 42 made three pointers? I redid the query with players attempting more than 2 three pointers per game and the results are quite different. http://www.basketball-reference.com...c3val=.5&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=ws Seen this way Martell is near the bottom in 3 pt% (for those attempting at least 2 per game) and almost last in true shooting % (probably because he takes so few foul shots). There are million ways to parse data, but try to pick something that is normalized if you want a fairer method of comparing players.
That's your whole problem. Your search isn't relevent. There are a ton of guys just outside of your "specifications" that are superior to Webster, the difference being, they didn't take so many shots to get to where they are at, because they are much more efficient at 3 point shooting. Here are some examples: Quentin Richardson (only had made 39 3's.) Far superior stats. He was a free agent this summer. http://www.nba.com/playerfile/quentin_richardson/career_stats.html Ryan Anderson. Didn't show up because he has only made 38 3's as a reserve in reserve minutes. Was traded by NJ as a "Throw in". http://www.nba.com/playerfile/ryan_anderson/index.html I would suggest you look at your query, and refine it. It is not realistic.
Aaah your right. He was traded. My bad. It still doesn't invalidate my point though. There are still a lot of guys that are just outside of the specifications of that search that are better than Webster. They just haven't taken as many 3's.
So he hasn't made as many as Webster. You'd think a "pure shooter" would be taking more than our part-time starting SF, right? (You see? That "outlier" wasn't relevant, either. Or was it? why is your number of 39 "far superior"?) Aside from the fact that Q-Rich, no matter how efficient he was or wasn't, hasn't made as many as our scrub part-time starter. Which was a premise of the original stat sort. http://www.nba.com/playerfile/quentin_richardson/career_stats.html I was very straightforward with the assumptions in the initial post, which took Martell's numbers, added a fudge factor to make it "40" instead of "42" (since that was more "even", which is bullpucky, but whatever) and 35% instead of 35.8%. I was told not that the assumptions were faulty, or that they were too limited or whatever (all valid concerns), but that it was "bullpucky" b/c Martell's 99th in percentage or whatever. Here they are again, so you don't have to scroll back. So you believe Ryan Anderson and Q-Rich are pure shooters? Why do you include them in your sample at 39 and 38? What about someone who's shot 36? Or 32? Or 12? Or 1? Where's your line? I drew mine arbitrarily at Webster's numbers. It's not my fault they don't meet with anyone's perceptions. It is "realistic", since it's "factual" and "backed up by statistics". If you feel other qualifiers need to be on there, so be it. Nik's very reasonable post that he used 2 attempts per game is a good one. You could ask "why 2 3PA/g?". But that's where he drew his line. I ask again, where's yours? My "line" wasn't a normalization of attempts per game. It was a "line" of shooters who've made more than Webster at a higher percentage than Webster. Since the original question that drove this post was "how many lights-out shooters are there in the NBA, if Paxil doesn't think Webs is or ever will be one", I looked at who made more and at a better percentage than Webster. There are 21 of those in the league. That is realistic, factual, statistical, however you want to say it. If you want to have a different definition of "pure" or "lights-out" shooter, go for it. If you want to say that someone who attempts 2 three's a game is a pure shooter, have at it. But that becomes your research project. Not mine.
Sometimes this forum and well.... Blazer fans in general trip me out. Okay, I get it. People would rather have Batum over Webster. Problem is, Batum is on the injured list and Webster is our only true SF on the team, well if you consider Cunningham too. Regardless, I would rather cheer on the good play, than harp on the bad. So far, I've been pleasantly surprised with Webster's defense this season. And once Batum comes back, he's going to have to earn the starting spot. That's a great thing. I love having those two on the team. They are the perfect 1-2 combo, regardless of who starts.
