UPDATE: Gay to Raptors agreed in principle MERGED

[R-Star]

Originally Posted by E.H. Munro

I have no idea what "special numbers" I'm using. We've been adjusting FG% for the value of three point shots for a generation, and scoring efficiency is also some 15 years old.

And 15 shots a game and at 44% are his stats.


Adjusting FG% for the value of three point shots? Ha..... Wow. So in your books, because Derozan is a sub par 3 point shooter at the whole whopping 1.7 times a game he shoots one it means hes a chucker.


Oh ok.

[E.H. Munro]

I'm sorry that your engineer's mind has such problems with grade school math.

[R-Star]

Originally Posted by E.H. Munro

I'm sorry that your engineer's mind has such problems with grade school math.

Feel free to elaborate. I ask questions and you seem to not want to answer.

Go back and answer the previous post or quit posting. Dermar Derozans poor 3 point shooting on the whopping 1.7 shots he takes from behind the arc a game make him a chucker?


You haven't called him a chucker since your original post, where you questioned if I even watch him play.


Again, elaborate about the math I'm having trouble understanding. The same math that makes 15 attempt a game Derozan a chucker, and takes every shot he can get his arms to throw up Harden a superb team player.


Or for once, admit you're wrong without adding a "but......" or "if you look at it......"


Nah, too much to ask. I look forward to your ingenious in the morning. I'm off to bed.

[E.H. Munro]

You seem to be under the impression that .455 is less than .439. It's not.

EDIT: As for Harden, let's look, shall we?

League Average
aFG% .490
ScEff 1.05

The Beard
aFG% .511
ScEff 1.21

Nope. Not a chucker.

[R-Star]

How exactly was I under the impression that .455 is less than .439?

Your definition of a chucker is anyone who shoots under league average?


You're kidding right?

[MemphisX]

The real question is how do you define chucker?

[R-Star]

Originally Posted by MemphisX

The real question is how do you define chucker?

A guy who seems to take a shot any time he has the chance. Often taking his team out of offensive flow in doing so. Jacking up a contested 3 even though there's 10+ seconds on the shot clock. Etc.

JR Smith if we talk about current players.

Cavs version Ricky Davis.

Gilbert Arenas.

[RollWithEm]

Eddie House is a chucker. I didn't use the past tense because I believe he is still in some Saturday morning rec league chucking it up every chance he gets. That will not change.

[Cinco de Mayo]

Originally Posted by MemphisX

The real question is how do you define chucker?

[E.H. Munro]

Originally Posted by R-Star

How exactly was I under the impression that .455 is less than .439?

Because you're under the impression that aFG% penalises DeRozan by adjusting his FG% upwards to account for the value of his three point shots. The reality is that raw FG% penalises guys like George for shooting 4-5 treys a game, even though he shoots them well. So when assessing the shooting ability of perimeter players, in order to compare apples to apples, you use the adjusted FG%.

Originally Posted by R-Star

Your definition of a chucker is anyone who shoots under league average?

My definition of a chucker is an inefficient shooter and scorer that just keeps forcing up shots. If you're making them, you ain't a chucker. Only a lunatic would call Durant or James a chucker, despite the amount of FGAs they generate. Why? Because they produce points efficiently, which is the entire point of the game.

[R-Star]

Originally Posted by E.H. Munro

Because you're under the impression that aFG% penalises DeRozan by adjusting his FG% upwards to account for the value of his three point shots. The reality is that raw FG% penalises guys like George for shooting 4-5 treys a game, even though he shoots them well. So when assessing the shooting ability of perimeter players, in order to compare apples to apples, you use the adjusted FG%.



My definition of a chucker is an inefficient shooter and scorer that just keeps forcing up shots. If you're making them, you ain't a chucker. Only a lunatic would call Durant or James a chucker, despite the amount of FGAs they generate. Why? Because they produce points efficiently, which is the entire point of the game.

You seem like you're trying to distance yourself here.

Are you still calling Dermar Derozan a chucker? And who the hell called James or Durant chuckers?

[R-Star]

Also, Derozan hardly ever shoots 3's, which is the point of saying its asinine to bring up his 3 point shooting in fancy percentages like its somehow a huge mark against him.


If he was shooting 4 from behind the arc a game that would make sense. But he doesn't.

[E.H. Munro]

Originally Posted by R-Star

You seem like you're trying to distance yourself here.

Are you still calling Dermar Derozan a chucker? And who the hell called James or Durant chuckers?

Distance myself from what? I gave you my definition way back when and you keep demanding that I reiterate it. Let's see, is DeRozan an efficient shooter? Nope. Is he an efficient scorer? Nope. Does he shoot the ball a lot? Yep.

Originally Posted by R-Star

Also, Derozan hardly ever shoots 3's, which is the point of saying its asinine to bring up his 3 point shooting in fancy percentages like its somehow a huge mark against him.

If he was shooting 4 from behind the arc a game that would make sense. But he doesn't.

It does not matter whether or not he shoots a lot of treys, what matters, when evaluating shooters, is how well they shoot. So we compare apples to apples, and not durians. The leaguewide aFG% is .490, and that's the mark we judge shooters against. So, again, George is an average shooter and scores with average effciency, so his team isn't paying for all those shots the way Toronto does.

[R-Star]

Originally Posted by E.H. Munro

Distance myself from what? I gave you my definition way back when and you keep demanding that I reiterate it. Let's see, is DeRozan an efficient shooter? Nope. Is he an efficient scorer? Nope. Does he shoot the ball a lot? Yep.



It does not matter whether or not he shoots a lot of treys, what matters, when evaluating shooters, is how well they shoot. So we compare apples to apples, and not durians. The leaguewide aFG% is .490, and that's the mark we judge shooters against. So, again, George is an average shooter and scores with average effciency, so his team isn't paying for all those shots the way Toronto does.

I'm sorry, I've asked about 5 times now, are you still calling Derozan a chucker?

Its not a tough question.


And again, have fun with your expanded stats John Hollinger. They're pointless. I'm one of the biggest Paul George fans out there, but he doesn't get special stats to me just because he shoots 3's.

Paul George gets 17ppg on .422 shooting.
DeMar Derozan gets 18ppg on .439 shooting.

They both take the same amount of shots per game.

Are Paul Georges 3's magic and even though it doesn't show up in his scoring stats, they mean more?

Since Derozan plays to his strengths and shoots more inside, do those count less than Georges points?


I always have to laugh at guys who try to use nerd stats to try to overcomplicate basketball and make themselves feel smart. DeMar scores one more point a game on the same amount of shots as Paul George because he does it more efficiently. Just because Paul shoots a ton more 3 pointers a game doesn't somehow make his points more impressive.



Again. Keep trying. But this isn't baseball, Moneyball.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by E.H. Munro

Distance myself from what? I gave you my definition way back when and you keep demanding that I reiterate it. Let's see, is DeRozan an efficient shooter? Nope. Is he an efficient scorer? Nope. Does he shoot the ball a lot? Yep.



It does not matter whether or not he shoots a lot of treys, what matters, when evaluating shooters, is how well they shoot. So we compare apples to apples, and not durians. The leaguewide aFG% is .490, and that's the mark we judge shooters against. So, again, George is an average shooter and scores with average effciency, so his team isn't paying for all those shots the way Toronto does.

You're getting called out by a guy with a grocer's apostrophe above his avatar. How does that make you feel?