Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ESPN 5-on-5: Rudy Gay most Overrated Small Forward.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Rapstor4Life wrote: View Post
    according to his site and nba ya he did...

    http://www.nba.com/playerfile/demar_derozan/
    Unfortunately, Field Goal % isn't the metric for measuring efficiency anymore. If it were, then you'd be correct.

    But looking at True Shooting % and Effective Field Goal %, Demar is below average using both.

    (I don't really care though. Demar is better than Lebron.)

    Comment


    • joey_hesketh wrote: View Post
      Unfortunately, Field Goal % isn't the metric for measuring efficiency anymore. If it were, then you'd be correct.

      But looking at True Shooting % and Effective Field Goal %, Demar is below average using both.

      (I don't really care though. Demar is better than Lebron.)
      What exactly is the difference between the two bold metrics?

      Comment


      • Sam17 wrote: View Post
        What exactly is the difference between the two bold metrics?
        EFG% considers 2pt and 3pt shots (shooting 2/6 from 3 will give you the same EFG% as shooting 3/6 from 2).

        TS% considers free throws as well.

        Comment


        • Sam17 wrote: View Post
          What exactly is the difference between the two bold metrics?
          Well Im guessing it combines all field goal percentages 2 pointers and 3 pointers I could be wrong though but dam DeMAr isnt a 3 point shooter anyway... lol so its not really a fair measurement.

          Comment


          • joey_hesketh wrote: View Post
            (I don't really care though. Demar is better than Lebron.)
            DeMar DeRozan - Age 23 - .831 FT%
            LeBron James - Age 23 - .712 FT%

            BOOM! I'm sorry, I couldn't quite hear you haters over the sound of my LOGIC!!!

            Comment


            • It's really unfair to use effective field-goal percentage to evaluate a player that gets to the line as much as DeRozan.

              TS% is a lot more fair to use for him, and yes even according to that he's slightly below average.

              Comment


              • Xixak wrote: View Post
                It's really unfair to use effective field-goal percentage to evaluate a player that gets to the line as much as DeRozan.

                TS% is a lot more fair to use for him, and yes even according to that he's slightly below average.
                There are a lot of things that aren't fair. LIfe is one of them.

                So I assume only analysis that supports one's view should be used by everyone?

                DeRozan only does one thing. Whether it is below average (eFG%) or a smidge below average (TS%), when you only do one thing, you don't want to be average at it.

                Comment


                • Matt52 wrote: View Post
                  There are a lot of things that aren't fair. LIfe is one of them.

                  So I assume only analysis that supports one's view should be used by everyone?

                  DeRozan only does one thing. Whether it is below average (eFG%) or a smidge below average (TS%), when you only do one thing, you don't want to be average at it.
                  No what I'm saying is effective field-goal percentage isn't really a good metric for a player that goes to the line a lot, because it doesn't take free throw shooting into account at all. (FG + 0.5 * 3P) / FGA.

                  Getting to the free throw line a lot should factor into scoring efficiency, which is why I think True Shooting Percentage is the better metric because it incorporates the fact that 3s are worth more than 2s, and also incorporates free throw shooting into the calculation. Points / (2 * FGA + FTA * 0.44)

                  I'm not trying to suggest that DeRozan is an efficient scorer or used biased statistics. It's pretty universally accepted that TS% is a better measure of efficiency than eFG% for the reasons I stated.

                  Comment


                  • Xixak wrote: View Post
                    No what I'm saying is effective field-goal percentage isn't really a good metric for a player that goes to the line a lot, because it doesn't take free throw shooting into account at all. (FG + 0.5 * 3P) / FGA.

                    Getting to the free throw line a lot should factor into scoring efficiency, which is why I think True Shooting Percentage is the better metric because it incorporates the fact that 3s are worth more than 2s, and also incorporates free throw shooting into the calculation. Points / (2 * FGA + FTA * 0.44)

                    I'm not trying to suggest that DeRozan is an efficient scorer or used biased statistics. It's pretty universally accepted that TS% is a better measure of efficiency than eFG% for the reasons I stated.
                    Yeah, they measure different things. TS% is a measure of offensive efficiency. eFG% is a measure of shooting ability (or performance at least).
                    twitter.com/dhackett1565

                    Comment


                    • This seems to have gotten off topic from Rudy Gay, but either way...
                      I found this article a while back, and have spent all morning looking for it.. found it.
                      The Blog (I think its a blog?) is Escobar on NBA, and I highly recommend you give this a read in its entirety.

                      In it, they not only break down the Problems with eFG%,
                      Escobar on NBA wrote:
                      On January 22, 2013, J.J. Redick shot the lights out against the Pistons. Redick was nearly perfect, shooting 9-10 from the floor, including an impressive 5-6 from the 3-point line. Redick was also 3-4 from the Free Throw line, but since eFG% doesn’t factor in Free Throws–at all–we leave that number aside. So, when we plug in Redick’s numbers to the eFG% formula, Redick’s eFG% is (9 + .5 * 5) / 10. You multiply the result by 100, and you get . . . . 115%. Unless Derrick Rose is the accidental architect of a revolution in mathematics, something is off here. What is this number (eFG%) possibly supposed to tell us? Redick was undeniably great that night, but he absolutely was not perfect. He missed one shot. And in any case, he certainly wasn’t better than perfect. Right?
                      and True Shooting %,
                      Escobar on NBA wrote:
                      True shooting percentage, on the other hand, attempts to measure free throws.
                      But the metric is . . . odd, to say the least. First, TS% does not distinguish, as eFG% at least attempts to do, between a made 2-point shot and a made 3-point shot. Rather, a player’s total points are lumped together. Second, free throw attempts are weighted at .44. This is the most puzzling choice in the formula. The supposed rationale for this number is that free throws are not a full possession. But . . . are we measuring possessions? If so, then presumably we should distinguish between 3-point shots and 2-point shots for TS%. For example, it takes 6 possessions to get 12 points if you make only 2-point shots, but it takes only 4 possessions if you make all 3-pointers. And, anyway, is a FTA 44% of a field goal attempt, or is it more accurately understood as 33% of a 3-point attempt?

                      Did I mention that the “Derrick Rose Effect” is still in play with TS%? Don’t worry if you didn’t catch it, but JJ Redick’s great night against against Detroit comes out as once again better than perfect under the TS% rubric. Redick had 26 pts. The denominator, working inside-out, is ((.44 x 4) + 10 ) x 2, which equals 23.52. So . . . JJ Redick’s TS% is 26 / 23.52, or 111%. The use of the word “true” in “true” shooting percentage officially strains the imagination.
                      they also offer their own solution to this problem by creating the Weighted Field Goal %,
                      Escobar on NBA wrote:
                      Here is what I propose: a rubric that takes into account every shot a player makes but weighs those shots according to their value. We start with the notion that a made 3-pointer gives you 3 out of a possible 3 shots. Since a 2-point shot gives you 2 out of 3, we weight it accordingly. Ditto for free throws, only they yield 1 out of 3. What does this mean? Think of it this way: if you added every shot a guy took on a given night and made no distinction between free throws, 2-pointers, and 3-pointers, you’d have an accurate shooting percentage. But . . . what would this number really tell you? A better number would provide some distinctions between 1′s, 2′s, and 3′s. Our new metric does this, by weighing 1′s, 2′s, and 3′s. Here’s the formula:

                      (FT x (3/9)) + ((FG – 3ptFG) x (6/9)) + (3pt FG)

                      ——————————————————————————— x 100 = Weighted Field Goal %

                      (FTA x (3/9)) + ((FGA – 3pt FGA) x (6/9) + (3pt FGA)

                      Congratulations if you’re still with us. It’s been brutal, but we’re almost done. In human terms, all we’re doing there is adding up the number of shots made and dividing that number the number of shots taken, but we’re assigning those shots a weight (1/3, 2/3, or 3/3) based on whether the shot is a free throw, a 2-point field goal, or a 3 point field goal. And notice we are weighing shot attempts as well. This is important, as we will see, because it means our percentage can never exceed 100%. A small victory for common sense. So what does this number tell us? What has this all been for? Let’s plug in J.J. Redick’s numbers to see what we get. On top of shooting 90% from the field and going 5-6 from the 3-point line (83%), Redick also shot 3-4 from the stripe (75%). But these 3 shots from the line are not factored in anywhere in conventional Field Goal Percentage. Conventional Field Goal percentage does not give extra weight to Redick’s 5 made 3-pointers, either. So what we’re after is a number that factors in both 3-point shooting and free-throw shooting.

                      When we run Redick’s numbers through the WFG% equation, Redick comes out shooting 87% overall. What does this number mean? A couple of things. First of all, when we say Redick shot 90% from the field on 9-10 shooting, we are speaking in terms of conventional field goal percentage. We aren’t, in other words, factoring in free throws. Nor are we weighing three’s more heavily than other shots. And Redick missed a free throw. Our WFG% counts that miss. And our WFG% values 3-point shots (both in makes and attempts) more than other shots. Redick was a perfect 4-4 on 2-point shots. But we don’t weigh those shots as heavily as we weigh his 5 made threes. Redick’s one miss from the field was a 3-point shot, so that miss necessarily counts against him more than a two-point miss would have. There’s probably a lesson in here about how you can’t have it both ways (extra credit for made three’s but no extra penalty for missed three’s), but we leave that for another day.
                      They follow it up the next day with some comments and criticisms, but for the most part, I think its pretty solid.

                      Comment


                      • BobLoblaw wrote: View Post
                        No.

                        Here's a 2012 example, using that logic. Chicago and Boston were similar defensive teams in 2012. Boozer and KG had near identical defensive rating and DWS. Therefore, it's safe to say that Boozer and KG were similar defenders.
                        5 minutes of tape is better than that.

                        George is so ahead of the curve defensively, that it's ridiculous. He is far better than a young Deng or for that matter Iggy (on the defensive end). George's defensive footwork and help defense might be the best among all wings in the league, right now.

                        I just don't know if he can still improve on the defensive end, he's so good already. He needs to add some strength, but won't he lose some of the quickness? If he can still improve as a defender, we might be looking at a generational wing defender, a la Moncrief, Cooper, Payton, Artest. It will be interesting where he goes from here, to say the least.

                        As for Deng, early in his career, Deng wasn't all that great. He was solid defensively because of his length and effort, but far from elite.
                        But here is the very problem with that premise - its pure confirmation bias. "I think KG looks like a significantly better defender, therefore his #s should say he is".

                        But we are also talking about a 36 year old KG (with 18 years of wear and tear) vs a 31 year old Boozer (with 11 years of wear and tear). While their numbers come out as similar, KGs do still come out as better than Boozers even if its not by a significant margin.

                        How much of an impact does KG still actually have today vs the historic reputation he's built? Over their careers, KG's DWS/48 is 0.09. Boozer's is 0.07. Thats no small difference

                        Could it not be as likely be that Boozer's overall contribution to defense has been underrated for years, maybe even improving with experience, and while a worse defender than Garnett over their respective histories, Garnett age and injuries are just allowing that gap to close?

                        I'm not saying this is or is not the truth - but if we want to say we should question the numbers if they don't tell us what we think or believe or is common knowledge, we should be just as willing to question what we think or believe or the common knowledge if they don't match the numbers.

                        Comment


                        • Craiger wrote: View Post
                          But here is the very problem with that premise - its pure confirmation bias. "I think KG looks like a significantly better defender, therefore his #s should say he is".

                          But we are also talking about a 36 year old KG (with 18 years of wear and tear) vs a 31 year old Boozer (with 11 years of wear and tear). While their numbers come out as similar, KGs do still come out as better than Boozers even if its not by a significant margin.

                          How much of an impact does KG still actually have today vs the historic reputation he's built? Over their careers, KG's DWS/48 is 0.09. Boozer's is 0.07. Thats no small difference

                          Could it not be as likely be that Boozer's overall contribution to defense has been underrated for years, maybe even improving with experience, and while a worse defender than Garnett over their respective histories, Garnett age and injuries are just allowing that gap to close?

                          I'm not saying this is or is not the truth - but if we want to say we should question the numbers if they don't tell us what we think or believe or is common knowledge, we should be just as willing to question what we think or believe or the common knowledge if they don't match the numbers.
                          This is still basketball. It doesn't have to be that complicated, we don't need stats to confirm every little thing. Do i need stats to know that Tony Allen is a better defender than DeRozan? Marc Gasol than Greg Monroe? Avery Bradley than Calderon? Yes, philosophically there's "confirmation bias", heck, if we go far enough, maybe none of this is real, maybe this whole NBA thing is just in my mind? But at some point, we have to trust our eyes.

                          When I watch Garnett, I see a very long, high intensity, mobile 7 footer who's a genius in pick and roll and overall help defense. He may not jump as high as he used to and sometimes at all, he's not the rim protector he used to be, but he's still clearly very good. When I watch Boozer, I see an undersized, short armed big who's terrible as a pick and roll defender because doesn't move well enough, who's often lazy to run back in transition, and who doesn't have the length or hops to protect the rim at all. To Boozer's credit, he has a lot of strength which is useful in certain situations, but overall defensively he's not very good.

                          If it was a close call, I'd find stats very useful in grasping the full picture. But this doesn't look close at all.

                          Anyway, re bolded part: the numbers do show that Garnett is better, just not these numbers. Synergy, wowys (on/off court stats), proximity defensive stats all significantly favor Garnett.

                          DWS and defensive rating say they are similar... but really, they don't. People are just taking those stats for what they are not and ignore their built-in limitations. These stats reflect the quality of team defense, adjusted for individual numbers. It's up to the user to interpret these stats; are they high because of the player, or despite the player.

                          Comment


                          • joey_hesketh wrote: View Post
                            This seems to have gotten off topic from Rudy Gay, but either way...
                            I found this article a while back, and have spent all morning looking for it.. found it.
                            The Blog (I think its a blog?) is Escobar on NBA, and I highly recommend you give this a read in its entirety.

                            In it, they not only break down the Problems with eFG%,


                            and True Shooting %,


                            they also offer their own solution to this problem by creating the Weighted Field Goal %,


                            They follow it up the next day with some comments and criticisms, but for the most part, I think its pretty solid.
                            Yeah the problem with weighted field-goal percentage is it actually punishes players for shooting more 3 pointers (even if they make them at the same clip.

                            Player A: 28pts 8/16 FG, 2/4 3PT, 10-10 FT = 60.8%
                            Player B: 30pts 8/16 FG, 4/8 3PT, 10-10 FT = 60.0%

                            So you can see how it's flawed based on that.

                            I calculated Gay, DeRozan and Paul George's.

                            Gay (In Toronto): 46.3%
                            George: 44.4%
                            DeRozan: 49.3%

                            All of these players are in a similar range of efficiency when you look at TS%, but here DeRozan has a clear advantage because this rating punishes players who shoot a lot of 3s like George (5.9 a game compared to 3.1 for Gay and 1.5 for DeRozan).


                            It's interesting to take a look at guys like Steph Curry and James Harden. Both of these guys hoist up a ton of threes but are considered very efficient by both TS% and eFG% (Curry: 58.9% & 54.9%) (Harden: 60.0% & 50.4%). Let's see what their weighted FG%s are.

                            Harden: 51.2%
                            Curry: 48.7%

                            And with that you can probably throw this metric out the window lol. It hurts 3PT shooters way too much, nobody with sense would say DeRozan is more efficient than Steph Curry when Curry shoots a higher percentage in FG, 3PT and FT on higher volume (except for FTs).

                            Comment


                            • joey_hesketh wrote: View Post
                              This seems to have gotten off topic from Rudy Gay, but either way...
                              I found this article a while back, and have spent all morning looking for it.. found it.
                              The Blog (I think its a blog?) is Escobar on NBA, and I highly recommend you give this a read in its entirety.

                              In it, they not only break down the Problems with eFG%,


                              and True Shooting %,


                              they also offer their own solution to this problem by creating the Weighted Field Goal %,


                              They follow it up the next day with some comments and criticisms, but for the most part, I think its pretty solid.
                              Unfortunately his math theory is mistaken.

                              We didn't have to do anything to the bottom half of the equation.

                              3pters are worth 50% more than a regular field goal, so changing the denominator is pointless.

                              3/3 on 2pters = 6 pts
                              2/3 on 3pters = 6pts

                              We shoot 2/3 on three pointers we get

                              2+(2*0.5)/3 = 100% eFg%

                              Whe shoot 3/3 on three pointers we get

                              3 + (0*0.5)/3 = 100% eFG%


                              What he is doing is looking at shots and assuming > 100% is impossible. ie a Guy shoots a ridiculous % from three which takes him over 100% eFG%. However, you shoot 6/6 on 3s, you simply cannot score that well on the equivalent amount of 2s. 6/6 on 2s would only score you 12 pts.

                              So 6/6 on threes (18pts) = 150%*2/2 on twos.

                              Here's his problem:

                              are we measuring possessions?
                              we are. We are measuring the effective % of points scored on a possession

                              Comment


                              • lol, atrocious. no to wFG%. He's playing a semantics game by saying a percentage should not be higher than 100%, but the comments had it right; it's about measuring efficiency, using two-point attempts as the baseline measure. He also fails to understand that TS% does indeed differentiate between a made two and a made three simply by not distinguishing between a 2PTA and a 3PTA. On the same number of shots and FTs, with more threes made, your TS% will be higher.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X