"“I have been doing analytics since I was 12 years old, try to get fouled, try to get great shots and try to limit people from getting good shots,” Browns said. “I don’t buy this mid range jump shot is not a good shot.” He understands why analytics have become a big part of the game. “New owners made their money on information so you can sound awful smart throwing a lot of information at people,” he said. “But inside, you know who can play and who can’t.” Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/...t-a-fan-of-analytics.html#ybG0XiVshTQyoSef.99 Amen Larry
It's like having a weighted average. If you could choose to take a 4 page final test and that counts as much as a1 page worksheet, I'm going to relax on that final and make sure the work sheet is perfect.
I definitely agree with Brown. This is why I take advanced metrics as just a small portion of player value. How do you factor the player that just has it? Take Lillard for example. He has above average advanced metrics, but his value on the team supercedes the advanced matrix. In fact, I wouldn't want to trade him for Westbrick, who has better advanced stats.
in related news, Larry Brown has the 5th-most losses in NBA history and 1 championship in 26 years. OBTW, on a team that embraced the 3, was best in the league at defending the 3pt line and limiting free throws, and gave up mid-range J's ("only" 9th in the league) the mid-range shot may be a good shot, but it's not as good as a 3, or as good as a layup, or as good as a free throw. You're still pretty, mid-range, but this is a bigger pond.
But to completely devalue the mid range game is silly. Absolutely, take the wide open 3 if you can, but don't make that your only game plan. Tony Parker made his living off the mid range shot, and the Spurs as well. They've been in the thick of contention for almost 2 decades and have 5 titles. Only the last 3 seasons were when they utilized the 3. Before that, they utilized the mid range and paint scoring.
Any open shot in the NBA is a good shot because of how hard an open shot is to get, its just that some open shots are better then others. Open 3 and open near the rim are the two best shots but just because they are better doesnt make the open mid-range a terrible shot.
Who are the big proponent GMs of analytics? Daryl Morey- yeah, he just falls ass backwards into stars. Rich Cho- yeah. Like King Speed says, "Learn the game, then post". Nerdcamp analytics are pretty fucking useless in the real world.
I agree with this. I think you can throw most of of Phil Jackson's teams in there too. Of course he had teams who got to the rim and he had superstars who were pretty good mid range shooters in Kobe and Michael. But I love players who can fake the three, let his man run by him, drive towards the basket and be able to pull up and hit the wide open mid range shot. Wide open being the key phrase because now a days so many teams guard the rim and the 3 pt line, leaving the mid range area open.
Last season, our defense was predicated on taking away the 3 and rim, while leaving the mid range open. SAS completely exposed this by having all the players go mid range for most the game. Pops designed entire game plans to find that mid range wide open shot. Once we had to adjust, they adjusted to their inside out game. Kept us on our heels the entire series. Now our defense is predicated on disrupting timing and contesting every shot. Being the second best defensive team in the league is no fluke. The fact we value every shot that's wide open the same has developed our defense with hardly any kinks. This will definitely help us in the playoffs.
What's kind of silly about this kind of stat analysis is that it looks at each type of shot as if it were an isolated thing rather than as a part of the game as a whole. Just considering shot efficiency data alone, you'd say that you should forget the mid-range shot and only shoot layups and 3 pointers. Of course, the reality is that defenses are trying to prevent these "more efficient" shots and that having a player who is a great mid-range shooter helps to open the way for the "more efficient" shots when the defense has to commit a couple of players to keeping the mid-range shooter from scoring.
The mid-range shot worked pretty well for guys like Oscar Robertson, Nate Archibald, Tony Parker, MJ, etc.
I honestly would not trade would not trade Lillard for a single person in the league. That includes LBJ and Durant. And if you were an outsider looking in and just looking at stats you would think Im crazy (and some still might haha) but the eye test, knowing his personality, chemistry, things like that confirm to me that there is no other player than can bring that value to our team. And I believe he will get better and that there is no player in this league that is as clutch as he is no matter what the stats may say. My eye test and the confidence he has and that his team and fans have in him in clutch situations is unparalleled in my opinion. I love stats but stats are not guarantees is performance or outcomes.
Yep, Lillard has the mojo of Jordan. You can see it, which is something more valuable than any advanced stat can tell you. The same could be said on the opposite end with Aldridge. He doesn't have that mojo... BTW, Aldridge is my favorite player, but I know he doesn't have that gene in him. He is a leader type player, but he doesn't have that, "I want to be the best player on the court" drive in him. He reminds me of how Pippen was to Jordan. Aldridge has great skills, but needs a player like Jordan to be truly successful.
i agree i wouldnt trade lillard for anyone in the nba right now. he's going to win us a championship, possibly multiple.
It doesn't matter if Larry Brown understands it or not. The inside shot and 3pt shot are more efficient than the mid range.
