Lakers Thread

Like real basketball, as well as basketball video games? Talk about the NBA, NCAA, and other professional and amateur basketball leagues here.

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby Andrew on Wed Mar 28, 2018 10:05 am

Who do they think they are, Manute Bol?

phpBB [video]
NLSC Webmaster/Administrator
Image
Contact: Email | Twitter
Release Threads: NBA Live 08 | NBA Live 07 | NBA Live 06 | NBA Live 2005 | NBA Live 2004
Story Threads: NBA 2K13 | NBA Live 06 (Part 2) | NBA Live 06 (HOF) | NBA Live 2004 (HOF)
NLSC: Podcast | The Friday Five | Monday Tip-Off | Wayback Wednesday | 20th Anniversary of NBA Live | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube


Support The NLSC Hosting Fund: Patreon | GoFundMe

Image
Like my work? Want to help out with the NLSC Hosting Fund? Please consider leaving a tip!
User avatar
Andrew
45? That's a bad luck number!
Administrator
 
Posts: 103984
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2002 8:51 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby Jackal on Wed Mar 28, 2018 10:02 pm

Brook is just playing the role he's been asked to play. If Brook is dominating inside, as much as I want him to as well, it gives Randle less space to operate in.

That's why I'm hoping Brook decides to come back at a reasonable rate. You need to pair Randle with a big who is a wing on offense but can still guard the opposing teams centers. Randle can do it in stretches, but he can't sustain it and it might lead to injuries as well. The staff just needs to find a healthy balance with Brook playing inside out, he's more than capable.

That is unless Randle really adds to his offensive game this off season by expanding his range. Perhaps the Lakers are also banking on Thomas Bryant heavily given he is capable of shooting the three as well. Let's see.

Unfortunately the Lakers have been eliminated from playoff contention this year, but hopefully they make it next year.

Also regarding George, it's still not a bad move and shouldn't hinder Ingram at all given the move towards positionless basketball. Brook-Randle-Ingram-George-Ball is a more than competent line up. Even though KCP has picked it up post all star break, I don't think he'll be getting big bucks from the Lakers if George is willing to switch teams. Ingram is going to be a star for a long time to come, still believe heavily in that kid. Hopefully recovers fast and this team can continue to improve this coming year.
Image
User avatar
Jackal
 
Posts: 14804
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2003 2:59 am

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby shadowgrin on Wed Mar 28, 2018 11:11 pm

Ingram doesn't use alt accounts, he's already better than Durant.


Image

Image
HE'S USING HYPNOSIS!
JaoSming2KTV wrote:its fun on a bun
shadowgrin
Doesn't negotiate with terrorists. NLSC's Jefferson Davis. The Questioneer
 
Posts: 22994
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 6:21 am
Location: In your mind

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby Jackal on Wed Mar 28, 2018 11:54 pm

Sleepy Hollow isn't about that double life. He's a real OG.

Heck, the Slim Reaper nickname would've even fit him if KD hadn't rejected it to be called "The Servant". Bitch-ass KD.
Image
User avatar
Jackal
 
Posts: 14804
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2003 2:59 am

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby dwayne2005 on Thu Mar 29, 2018 5:18 am

Regarding Brook Lopez, 3 point shooting at .346 equals 1.038 points per shot attempt. 2 at .466 equals 0.932 points per shot attempt. If he earnt all his free throws from his 2 point game, his 2 point efficiency rises to 0.98. For most players, shooting 3's all day long is the more efficient basketball game whether or not they come from the Curry family. It's taken the idiots in the league 40 years to figure out, and they still haven't given the 3 point shot its due. My prediction is that 3 point shots will eventually be so abundant they will practically destroy the game as an entertainment. Something will eventually need to be done to counteract it and bring back diversity. I'm not confident enlarging the 3 point line would do that (most shooters these days shoot several feet behind the line already). Besides, you'd probably also need to enlargen the court sideways to counteract the side 3's. You'll probably just make it a guard dominant game with shots still raining from 3. There is a possibility 3 point shooting is less consistent than 2 point shooting (probably closer than you imagine), so 2's may still have some value even if they aren't as efficient on the average.
dwayne2005
 
Posts: 240
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 2:00 pm

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby [Q] on Thu Mar 29, 2018 6:46 am

Yeah but your data and points per shot don't mean much if you need a single bucket to break a cold streak or just need a bucket at the end of the game. I still prefer the higher percentage shot. You might get more points per shot, but at the end of the day, that shot has to go in for you to get the points

It's very frustrating as only 42.2% of his shots come within 10 ft of the basket when he's shooting 73% from 3 ft and in and also a solid 51% from 3-10 ft
What a waste of abilities
Image
User avatar
[Q]
NBA Live 18 Advocate
NLSC Team Member
 
Posts: 12766
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2002 8:20 am
Location: Westside, the best side

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby Dee4Three on Thu Mar 29, 2018 7:19 am

That is where advanced stats fail, Dwayne2005. Him shooting three's on the break, and shooting a ton of threes isn't what hes best at, and it's certainly not best for the team. As Q mentioned, he shoots 73% from 3ft in and 51% from 3-10 ft.

I also disagree about the league being stupid for 40 years and finally figuring it out..... Another point I disagree on is that at some point the 3 point shot will ruin the league. I honestly think we are seeing the 3 Point shot at a usage that may be around for a long time now. I don't see it going much further up from here on out.

Again, Brook is best close/around the basket. Him taking 3's on the fastbreak or early in the offense is not his specialty, and I strongly believe that it's not the best for the team. Lopez looks absolutely dominant around the basket at times (When he is on).

For most players, shooting 3's all day long is the more efficient basketball game whether or not they come from the Curry family.


I mean, is it? For most players? I disagree with this strongly, I believe the average for 3 point percentage in the league is like .360%, like right around that number. That is roughly the same percent as it was 20 years ago. The tweener game, post game, etc will always have a place, the size of that place has dwindled a bit, but it's still in the game. Look at the way Portland still uses Nurkic to dominate games (especially at home where he is at his best), look at Julius Randle, look at the work a lot of the big guys still do within that 3PT Line. There will always be a demand for players who can get easy buckets around the hoop at a 60-80% clip, as opposed to taking a shot 23-25 ft away from it at a .30-40% clip.
"I don't know if I practiced more than anybody, but I sure practiced enough. I still wonder if somebody - somewhere - was practicing more than me." - Larry Bird

Check out my YouTube channel

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvHJXrqit8Dc6HBY5P6EmAA
User avatar
Dee4Three
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 6559
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2014 12:34 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby NovU on Thu Mar 29, 2018 9:36 am

dwayne2005 wrote:Regarding Brook Lopez, 3 point shooting at .346 equals 1.038 points per shot attempt. 2 at .466 equals 0.932 points per shot attempt. If he earnt all his free throws from his 2 point game, his 2 point efficiency rises to 0.98. For most players, shooting 3's all day long is the more efficient basketball game whether or not they come from the Curry family. It's taken the idiots in the league 40 years to figure out, and they still haven't given the 3 point shot its due. My prediction is that 3 point shots will eventually be so abundant they will practically destroy the game as an entertainment. Something will eventually need to be done to counteract it and bring back diversity. I'm not confident enlarging the 3 point line would do that (most shooters these days shoot several feet behind the line already). Besides, you'd probably also need to enlargen the court sideways to counteract the side 3's. You'll probably just make it a guard dominant game with shots still raining from 3. There is a possibility 3 point shooting is less consistent than 2 point shooting (probably closer than you imagine), so 2's may still have some value even if they aren't as efficient on the average.

But it's been a lot of trials and error to get to this stage of 3pt shooting era with accumulated data supporting the cause and change.

Perhaps Mike D'Antoni and Steve Nash woke up the league. They found 3s are awesome and way more efficient than bang and grind. So it began, spacing war, to get as many shooters on the floor as possible and take open 3s at all chances, if not attack the opened up lane(clogging paint is the worst way to defend now because of sharp shooters). This worked so well for many teams that eventually changed the way of playing the ball game.




More than ever, shooting 3s has become such an important asset to have for players. Although fans don't like Cousins or Brook taking 3s, if they are effective and able to win more games that way than not, why the fuck not. Who cares if it's a bad entertainment. Ball game is sports first.
THX TO DOPE-JAO FOR THE SPECIAL SIG! <3
Image
Enjoy! <3 Jao
User avatar
NovU
Crap, what am I going to brag about now?
 
Posts: 11211
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 6:50 pm

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby Dee4Three on Thu Mar 29, 2018 11:30 am

66% of teams shot attempts come from 2 point range this season. Those shots fall at a .510% clip.

34% of teams shots this season come from 3 point range. Those shots fall at a .360% clip.

Teams are taking about 60 two pointers a game out of about 90 shot attempts. I don't see the gap getting much larger, and that means that a team MUST succeed within the 3 point line as almost 70% of the field goals taken are in that area.

When teams are still shooting almost 70% of those shots, there will always be a demand and room for those guys who can flat out get buckets below the 3pt line. Lopez. Who shoots .34% from three this year (2% under the league average), could absolutley be taking higher percentage shots.
"I don't know if I practiced more than anybody, but I sure practiced enough. I still wonder if somebody - somewhere - was practicing more than me." - Larry Bird

Check out my YouTube channel

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvHJXrqit8Dc6HBY5P6EmAA
User avatar
Dee4Three
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 6559
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2014 12:34 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby Andrew on Thu Mar 29, 2018 11:40 am

It comes down to good decision making, really. Stephen Curry pulling up for a three-pointer on a 2-on-1 break? He makes that work a lot of the time. Brook Lopez stopping and popping in the same situation? Obviously he can knock them down, but not necessarily the look you want.
NLSC Webmaster/Administrator
Image
Contact: Email | Twitter
Release Threads: NBA Live 08 | NBA Live 07 | NBA Live 06 | NBA Live 2005 | NBA Live 2004
Story Threads: NBA 2K13 | NBA Live 06 (Part 2) | NBA Live 06 (HOF) | NBA Live 2004 (HOF)
NLSC: Podcast | The Friday Five | Monday Tip-Off | Wayback Wednesday | 20th Anniversary of NBA Live | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube


Support The NLSC Hosting Fund: Patreon | GoFundMe

Image
Like my work? Want to help out with the NLSC Hosting Fund? Please consider leaving a tip!
User avatar
Andrew
45? That's a bad luck number!
Administrator
 
Posts: 103984
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2002 8:51 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby [Q] on Thu Mar 29, 2018 2:41 pm

I feel bad for Rick Carlisle and Dirk. Mavs are tanking so hard. I'd like to think I'm fairly knowledgeable about players, but I have literally never heard of any of the 5 guys they have on the floor

Edit: never mind, I remember Harrison from college. One half of the twins. I guess they just signed him to a 10 day
Image
User avatar
[Q]
NBA Live 18 Advocate
NLSC Team Member
 
Posts: 12766
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2002 8:20 am
Location: Westside, the best side

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby NovU on Thu Mar 29, 2018 4:38 pm

The Mavericks are bad unintentionally this season. There were high hopes for the roster with players returning healthy and Barnes in his prime. Turns out grandpa Dirk still is the better player than Barnes and Matthews combined. At this point, Harrison Barnes signing is looking like a major disappointment. He got paid for potential and he'll never live up to it.
THX TO DOPE-JAO FOR THE SPECIAL SIG! <3
Image
Enjoy! <3 Jao
User avatar
NovU
Crap, what am I going to brag about now?
 
Posts: 11211
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 6:50 pm

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby Andrew on Thu Mar 29, 2018 9:50 pm

He got the Trevor Ariza Deal after the Warriors' 73-9 season, and title the year before.
NLSC Webmaster/Administrator
Image
Contact: Email | Twitter
Release Threads: NBA Live 08 | NBA Live 07 | NBA Live 06 | NBA Live 2005 | NBA Live 2004
Story Threads: NBA 2K13 | NBA Live 06 (Part 2) | NBA Live 06 (HOF) | NBA Live 2004 (HOF)
NLSC: Podcast | The Friday Five | Monday Tip-Off | Wayback Wednesday | 20th Anniversary of NBA Live | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube


Support The NLSC Hosting Fund: Patreon | GoFundMe

Image
Like my work? Want to help out with the NLSC Hosting Fund? Please consider leaving a tip!
User avatar
Andrew
45? That's a bad luck number!
Administrator
 
Posts: 103984
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2002 8:51 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby dwayne2005 on Fri Mar 30, 2018 2:34 am

[Q] wrote:Yeah but your data and points per shot don't mean much if you need a single bucket to break a cold streak or just need a bucket at the end of the game. I still prefer the higher percentage shot. You might get more points per shot, but at the end of the day, that shot has to go in for you to get the points

It's very frustrating as only 42.2% of his shots come within 10 ft of the basket when he's shooting 73% from 3 ft and in and also a solid 51% from 3-10 ft
What a waste of abilities


I made a logical error, anyway. I do that a lot! I should have measured his 2 point shooting percentage, not field goal percent. He is way more efficient from 2 point range than 3, at .606 and 1.212 points per shot attempt, not even counting those earned from the foul line. Sometimes I don't know where my brain is at...

I'll have to run the numbers for the league at some point.
dwayne2005
 
Posts: 240
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 2:00 pm

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby NovU on Fri Mar 30, 2018 9:17 am

Where did you get that .606 number? Basketball-Reference has him .550 from 2 point range and .347 from 3 point range. Which returns:

Per 2 possessions:
2 Point Shots: 1.1 points
3 Point Shots: 1.041 points
3-pt Attempt Percentage: .411

BAD:
- Less Efficient
- Doesn't get fouled as often taking 3s, meaning less Free Throws which are the most efficient shots in the game
GOOD:
- Takes the opponent center out of paint: perhaps that's what the Lakers want


Over 40% of his shots are 3s. He's being utilized as a 3pt specialist. I am guessing this is just to help out the young players development rather than actually trying to win games.
THX TO DOPE-JAO FOR THE SPECIAL SIG! <3
Image
Enjoy! <3 Jao
User avatar
NovU
Crap, what am I going to brag about now?
 
Posts: 11211
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 6:50 pm

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby dwayne2005 on Sat Mar 31, 2018 3:31 am

NovU wrote:Where did you get that .606 number? Basketball-Reference has him .550 from 2 point range and .347 from 3 point range. Which returns:

Per 2 possessions:
2 Point Shots: 1.1 points
3 Point Shots: 1.041 points
3-pt Attempt Percentage: .411

BAD:
- Less Efficient
- Doesn't get fouled as often taking 3s, meaning less Free Throws which are the most efficient shots in the game
GOOD:
- Takes the opponent center out of paint: perhaps that's what the Lakers want


Over 40% of his shots are 3s. He's being utilized as a 3pt specialist. I am guessing this is just to help out the young players development rather than actually trying to win games.


My eyes probably tracked the wrong box at Basketball Reference or something, though I am mystified where since I can't see any confusable 60% boxes. It wouldn't be the first time. It was Basketball Reference I was looking at. Maybe I had two players up in two tabs and looked at the wrong tab? I ran the numbers through my program and last night came up with:

League wide, up to the all-star break, 3 point shooting was 1.08 points per shot (or 36% average; (PL3PM/PL3PA)*3) while 2 point shooting (this time discounting the threes from the equation) counts as 1.02 points per shot (or 51% average; ((PLFGM-PL3PM)/(PLFGA-PL3PA))*2).

On the other hand, if you count all the free throw shots as relating to the 2 point game, 2 point shooting becomes worth 1.13 points per shot ((PLPTS-(PL3PM*3))/(PLFGA-PL3PA+(0.44*PLFTA))). So by that measure, 2 point shooting is more efficient than 3 on the average for the league by 0.05 points per attempt (almost the same as the difference between 3 point shooting and 2).

Interestingly, up to the all-star break, Stephen Curry saw a dramatic increase in efficiency by this measure. He is 1.24 from 3, 1.19 from 2 and 1.43 from 2 point range plus free throws. Obviously, he is getting fouled because he can shoot whether or not it is coming from 3 point range. maybe partly for fear that he is go out and shoot a 3? So it brings into question assigning all the value of free throws to the 2 point game, especially as it is increasingly linked with 3 point shooting the more 3 point shots start to equal the number of 2 point shots. Brook Lopez was 1.03 from 2 point range, 1.00 from 3 point range and 1.10 from 2 point range plus free throws.

Manute Bol was way more efficient not shooting 3's (0.59 vs 0.87 and 0.92 when adding free throws). He got extremely lucky in one game in particular where he pledged to donate to charity for every 3 he scored or something (if I recall correctly). It is probably more proof of the existence of God than it is of Manute Bol's 3 point shooting (and I'm an atheist).
Last edited by dwayne2005 on Sat Mar 31, 2018 4:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
dwayne2005
 
Posts: 240
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 2:00 pm

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby Dee4Three on Sat Mar 31, 2018 3:55 am

dwayne2005 wrote:
NovU wrote:Where did you get that .606 number? Basketball-Reference has him .550 from 2 point range and .347 from 3 point range. Which returns:

Per 2 possessions:
2 Point Shots: 1.1 points
3 Point Shots: 1.041 points
3-pt Attempt Percentage: .411

BAD:
- Less Efficient
- Doesn't get fouled as often taking 3s, meaning less Free Throws which are the most efficient shots in the game
GOOD:
- Takes the opponent center out of paint: perhaps that's what the Lakers want


Over 40% of his shots are 3s. He's being utilized as a 3pt specialist. I am guessing this is just to help out the young players development rather than actually trying to win games.


My eyes probably tracked the wrong box at Basketball Reference or something, though I am mystified where since I can't see any confusable 60% boxes. It wouldn't be the first time. It was Basketball Reference I was looking at. I ran the numbers through my program and last night came up with:

League wide, up to the all-star break, 3 point shooting was 1.08 points per shot (or 36% average; (PL3PM/PL3PA)*3) while 2 point shooting (this time discounting the threes from the equation) counts as 1.02 points per shot (or 51% average; ((PLFGM-PL3PM)/(PLFGA-PL3PA))*2).

On the other hand, if you count all the free throw shots as relating to the 2 point game, 2 point shooting becomes worth 1.13 points per shot ((PLPTS-(PL3PM*3))/(PLFGA-PL3PA+(0.44*PLFTA))). So by that measure, 2 point shooting is more efficient than 3 on the average for the league by 0.05 points per attempt (almost the same as the difference between 3 point shooting and 2).

Interestingly, up to the all-star break, Stephen Curry saw a dramatic increase in efficiency by this measure. He is 1.24 from 3, 1.19 from 2 and 1.43 from 2 point range plus free throws. Obviously, he is getting fouled because he can shoot whether or not it is coming from 3 point range. maybe partly for fear that he is go out and shoot a 3? So it brings into question assigning all the value of free throws to the 2 point game. Brook Lopez was 1.03 from 2 point range, 1.00 from 3 point range and 1.10 from 2 point range plus free throws.

Manute Bol was way more efficient not shooting 3's (0.59 vs 0.87 and 0.92 when adding free throws). He got extremely lucky in one game in particular where he pledged to donate to charity for every 3 he scored or something (if I recall correctly). It is probably more proof of the existence of God than it is of Manute Bol's 3 point shooting (and I'm an atheist).


Ugh,

None of this really means anything, literally the 2 point shot is a higher percentage shot by 15% for the season by a league average. Lopez has a much higher percentage below the 3pt line, so logically those are better shots for him, and higher percentage shots for him.

Acting like teams should be taking even more threes because the league was stupid for 40 years and finally figured it out, really loses me. We are talking about an average percentage from three at .360%, and an averaged .510% from two, with teams shooting roughly 70% of the fields goals per game from two point range. While 3's are being taken more, the insides game and mid range game is still a major part of each game (about 70% of shots taken, to be honest).

This is where the advanced stats are silly to me. Finding a way to justify Brook Lopez jacking up threes on the break or early in the offense (which he has been doing often) by doing formulas and using advanced stats.

No, bottom line: the dude shoots about .34% from three, and .510% from 3-10 ft, and over 70% within 3 ft. Where as a coach do I want Brook when I need a bucket? Oh yeah, on the block. Am I cool with him taking an open three every now and than? Sure. Not the way he has been taking them.

Teams are also not hitting threes at a higher percentage as they did 20 years ago, go look on basketball reference, that are just taking more. So here we are, 20 years later, and we don't have better shooters.... we have players just shooting more. In order for 3 pointers to truly take over the league, you would need better shooters to make that decision a rational one. So far, that's not the case.

In 99-00, the league average for 3P% was .353... almost identical to this season. The myth that the league is loaded with shooters, or loaded with 3pt shooters, is just that... a myth. And while the floor is stretched more, the 3P percentage on a league wide average hasn't really changed.
Last edited by Dee4Three on Sat Mar 31, 2018 4:16 am, edited 2 times in total.
"I don't know if I practiced more than anybody, but I sure practiced enough. I still wonder if somebody - somewhere - was practicing more than me." - Larry Bird

Check out my YouTube channel

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvHJXrqit8Dc6HBY5P6EmAA
User avatar
Dee4Three
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 6559
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2014 12:34 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby dwayne2005 on Sat Mar 31, 2018 4:03 am

The context of the 'league is stupid' remark that you keep honing in on was that the NBA very, very slowly embraced the 3 point shot over the first decade in particular when it was clear that there was strides to make in terms of efficient scoring, which is what the bottom line is. You want to score my points per shot, but the NBA treated the 3 point line as a boogeyman largely because they were still stuck in conventional mindsets that grew up on a pre-1979 NBA game. It may appear more of a minor detail comparing the NBA today to the NBA of the 1990s, but it is still part of a historical trend: originally they just didn't shoot them because it wasn't the way it should be done, according to them. As for when the game is on the line in the crunch, it depends on scoreline but broadly you may be correct: the higher percentage, more reliable shots are the best to take. If a game is down double digits with 1:30 remaining, good luck bringing back the game swapping 2 for 2. A lot of comebacks depend on someone catching fire scoring that extra 1 point per shot (and hoping the other teams does not). Not to mention you are looking for 3's when the game is much closer with much less time on the clock because you are going to be fouling sending them to the line for an assured 2 points.
Last edited by dwayne2005 on Sat Mar 31, 2018 4:12 am, edited 2 times in total.
dwayne2005
 
Posts: 240
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 2:00 pm

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby Dee4Three on Sat Mar 31, 2018 4:10 am

dwayne2005 wrote:The context of the 'league is stupid' remark that you keep honing in on was that the NBA very, very slowly embraced the 3 point shot over the first decade in particular when it was clear that there was strides to make in terms of efficient scoring, which is what the bottom line is. You want to score my points per shot, but the NBA treated the 3 point line as a boogeyman largely because they were still stuck in conventional mindsets that grew up on a pre-1979 NBA game. It may appear more of a minor detail comparing the NBA today to the NBA of the 1990s, but it is still part of a historical trend: originally they just didn't shoot them because it wasn't the way it should be done, according to them. As for when the game is on the line in the crunch, it depends on scoreline but broadly you may be correct: the higher percentage, more reliable shots are the best to take. If a game is down double digits with 1:30 remaining, good luck bringing back the game swapping 2 for 2.


But the league wasn't stupid, that's all I was saying. The two point shot is still the MUCH higher percentage shot, even today.

And with no real increase in percentage over the last 20 some odd years, does it truly justify the jacking up of so many? Luckily I can still enjoy watching, because the majority of shots taken are still below the 3pt line.

Christ, in 91-92 the 3P% average for the league was .33%. The way people act about the 3 point shooters in the NBA now, you would think that the team 3P% shot up like 20% over the last 30 years. Literally a 3% difference in almost 30 years? Let's not act like the league is full of juggernaut shooters (not saying that to you specifically, just a statement).

And crunch time example is: if a team is down 3, and there is about 20 seconds to go. They will routinely go for a quick two in order to get within one, and than they foul. They go for that quick two because it's much higher percentage shot, and it probably always will be. The closer you are to the basket, the better chance (most players). Teams don't go for that quick three because they know that it has a much higher chance of missing, and the game would be more than likely over if they miss.

By the way, that Manute Bol game was hilarious. All of the threes came at the top of the key, he sling shot ted them. Watching the reactions of the players is priceless.
Last edited by Dee4Three on Sat Mar 31, 2018 4:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
"I don't know if I practiced more than anybody, but I sure practiced enough. I still wonder if somebody - somewhere - was practicing more than me." - Larry Bird

Check out my YouTube channel

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvHJXrqit8Dc6HBY5P6EmAA
User avatar
Dee4Three
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 6559
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2014 12:34 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby dwayne2005 on Sat Mar 31, 2018 4:20 am

But the league wasn't stupid, that's all I was saying. The two point shot is still the MUCH higher percentage shot, even today.

And with no real increase in percentage over the last 20 some odd years, does it truly justify the jacking up of so many? Luckily I can still enjoy watching, because the majority of shots taken are still below the 3pt line.


They had a reason to be reluctant to shoot the 3's early on. Largely cultural. There is no reason why they would be shooting so many 3's now in contrast besides the fact that they are realizing now that it is efficient (albeit maybe not entertaining) basketball.

And crunch time example is: if a team is down 3, and there is about 20 seconds to go. They will routinely go for a quick two in order to get within one, and than they foul. They go for that quick two because it's much higher percentage shot, and it probably always will be. The closer you are to the basket, the better chance (most players). Teams don't go for that quick three because they know that it has a much higher chance of missing, and the game would be more than likely over if they miss.


I made an ammendment to my post before seeing yours that addresses this:

Not to mention you are looking for 3's when the game is much closer with much less time on the clock because you are going to be fouling sending them to the line for an assured 2 points.

If the scoreline keeps coming back down to 3 or under, your point makes sense. I think the truth lies somewhere between the two, but teams do depend on that 3 point shot down the line. It is not always a matter of the highest percentage shot in the crunch especially if the other team is not cold. If the other team are ahead 4-6, it is probably more frequent than 1-3 anyway. In any event, the highest percentage shot is not exclusively utilized in the crunch.
dwayne2005
 
Posts: 240
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 2:00 pm

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby Dee4Three on Sat Mar 31, 2018 4:31 am

dwayne2005 wrote:
But the league wasn't stupid, that's all I was saying. The two point shot is still the MUCH higher percentage shot, even today.

And with no real increase in percentage over the last 20 some odd years, does it truly justify the jacking up of so many? Luckily I can still enjoy watching, because the majority of shots taken are still below the 3pt line.


They had a reason to be reluctant to shoot the 3's early on. Largely cultural. There is no reason why they would be shooting so many 3's now in contrast besides the fact that they are realizing now that it is efficient (albeit maybe not entertaining) basketball.

And crunch time example is: if a team is down 3, and there is about 20 seconds to go. They will routinely go for a quick two in order to get within one, and than they foul. They go for that quick two because it's much higher percentage shot, and it probably always will be. The closer you are to the basket, the better chance (most players). Teams don't go for that quick three because they know that it has a much higher chance of missing, and the game would be more than likely over if they miss.


I made an ammendment to my post before seeing yours that addresses this:

Not to mention you are looking for 3's when the game is much closer with much less time on the clock because you are going to be fouling sending them to the line for an assured 2 points.

If the scoreline keeps coming back down to 3 or under, your point makes sense. I think the truth lies somewhere between the two, but teams do depend on that 3 point shot down the line. It is not always a matter of the highest percentage shot in the crunch especially if the other team is not cold. If the other team are ahead 4-6, it is probably more frequent than 1-3 anyway.



Clearly the 3 is still an option. But most teams go for that quick two, that's all I'm saying. And why? Because it's absolutley a higher percentage shot. If they can get that quick two, and under pressure the opposing team misses a free throw, they are in a primed position to shoot a higher percentage shot to tie the game and send it into overtime. It also gives them the opportunity to show 2, and get an open 3 for the win.

My whole point is, not only are twos still relevant. They are still the most common attempt by almost 70%, meaning that a team must succeed below the 3pt line. The league will not be destroyed by the 3 point shot, like I said before, I strongly think we are almost at or at the peak of the two point and three point attempt ratio.

The percentages in the league are not going up, like I stated above. In 91-92 the team 3 point average was .33%, a 3% increase in almost 30 years doesn't scream revolution. The league may be shooting more, but they really are not converting at a higher percentage.

Nice to see hybrid bigs though that still know how to work the block. Embiid being one of them, he will hit the three, but his work on the block is what makes him truly special.
"I don't know if I practiced more than anybody, but I sure practiced enough. I still wonder if somebody - somewhere - was practicing more than me." - Larry Bird

Check out my YouTube channel

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvHJXrqit8Dc6HBY5P6EmAA
User avatar
Dee4Three
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 6559
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2014 12:34 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby dwayne2005 on Sat Mar 31, 2018 4:42 am

I'm not saying based on present stats 2 point shots have no role. Right now, assuming that this idea that all free throws should be awarded to the 2 point game is bogus and that it is not 50:50 (it makes sense for bigs, but how about shooters like Stephen Curry?), there is reason to argue that they aren't shooting enough 3's. That they should be taking even more than they are now. If the 3 point shooting percentages you cited continue to rise, then you can argue they should be shooting even more than whatever the number they are lagging behind today is. Eventually, as I said I predict it will destroy the game as an entertainment. It's not that I don't feel shooting can be entertaining basketball. I don't drool over dunks, I am well passed that. There is something ASMR about shots going in nothing but net. Like hot knives cutting through butter. It is the fact that diversity makes for entertainment, it always has and always will and I envision a time where the balance will begin to be tilted too much in favor of the long range game that something will need to be done (maybe a clock).
dwayne2005
 
Posts: 240
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 2:00 pm

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby Dee4Three on Sat Mar 31, 2018 4:46 am

dwayne2005 wrote:I'm not saying based on present stats 2 point shots have no role. Right now, assuming that this idea that all free throws should be awarded to the 2 point game is bogus and that it is not 50:50 (it makes sense for bigs, but how about shooters like Stephen Curry?), there is reason to argue that they aren't shooting enough 3's. That they should be taking even more than they are now. If the 3 point shooting percentages you cited continue to rise, then you can argue they should be shooting even more than whatever the number they are lagging behind today is. Eventually, as I said I predict it will destroy the game as an entertainment. It's not that I don't feel shooting can be entertaining basketball. I don't drool over dunks, I am well passed that. There is something ASMR about shots going in nothing but net. Like hot knives cutting through butter. It is the fact that diversity makes for entertainment, it always has and always will and I envision a time where the balance will begin to be tilted too much in favor of the long range game that something will need to be done (maybe a clock).


So we can agree to disagree. I don't think the trend shows teams should be shooting more 3's, you do. I don't believe the league will eventually be destroyed by it, you do.

No worries, we can move on.

Nice to have Manute Bol's game brought up, props for that.
"I don't know if I practiced more than anybody, but I sure practiced enough. I still wonder if somebody - somewhere - was practicing more than me." - Larry Bird

Check out my YouTube channel

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvHJXrqit8Dc6HBY5P6EmAA
User avatar
Dee4Three
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 6559
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2014 12:34 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby dwayne2005 on Sat Mar 31, 2018 5:11 am

The 3 point shot goes back to a test game in the NCAA in 1944. Then it was implemented by the ABA in 1961, but not the NBA until 1978-79. They were so reluctant to have the line that they enlarged it beyond the confines of the court, creating the kind of cool looking lines at the side because they couldn't stretch it at the sidelines. If it wasn't so awkward to process, they might have awarded it a score of 2.5 instead or some decimal number. They were intent on tweaking it as much as they could until they could no longer tweak it any further. They appear to have been worried about it throwing out the game balance from the outset. They have been happy for 40 years, but there will come a time when those fears are realized, mark my word. You probably have more freedom of choice in the NBA than in any other sport that I know of. You can't choose to slap a shot in from distance in hockey in order to get more points from it. You choose based on strategy, nothing more. Basketball has a potential balancing issue.
dwayne2005
 
Posts: 240
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 2:00 pm

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby Dee4Three on Sat Mar 31, 2018 5:21 am

I think my biggest gripe with the 3 point line was when they moved it in in the mid 90s. I thought that was silly, they tried to create a higher scoring (more exciting) game, only to return the line back to its original distance after only a few years.

My best memory regarding the 3 point line? Probably Watching Curry go nuts a couple years ago vs the Thunder, winning the game on a 35-40 ft three. The players reactions on the opposing bench when they saw he got it off... unblieveable. They knew it was in, even from that distance. Still one of the craziest games I've ever seen.
"I don't know if I practiced more than anybody, but I sure practiced enough. I still wonder if somebody - somewhere - was practicing more than me." - Larry Bird

Check out my YouTube channel

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvHJXrqit8Dc6HBY5P6EmAA
User avatar
Dee4Three
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 6559
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2014 12:34 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby dwayne2005 on Sat Mar 31, 2018 7:56 am

The relationship of 3 point attempts to success in 2017-18 (up to the all-star break).

This uses the 'or above' method of calculation where it adds up all above a value. So the bottomost value with include data from all games. This means teams that shoot below the average for 3 point attempts if it were largely positive for above average would register largely negative where the value here may show a plus rating or a neutral rating due to it tallying up all the above average games as well (where it finishes balancing out, it will start to break away from 50%).

Format:
[3PA 51:59] (54.80): 4-1 (80.00%) 8.60 3PM:36.50% 3PA:57.20%

Means it is 3 point attempts 51 to 59 by a team in a game for an average mark of 54.80 3 point attempts for the range. 4-1 is wins and losses (80%) with a +8.60 points differential. 3PM is the 3 point shooting percentage and 3PA is the 3 point attempt rate (percentage of total shots).

The pattern looks pretty clear to me the winning percentage and average points differential rises regardless of shooting percent. At the 45-59 range where it may be last stable, they are shooting worse than the bottom most range which is the league wide average (36.14% to 34.38%)! (Had to adjust the last stable range estimates due to a glitch I have to correct in my program.)

EDIT: It duplicated the labelling for all ranges due to the mode having team and opponent stats, and I missed the second one when renumbering. I know what's the issue, I will fix it up. The stats should be correct, the labelling isn't quite correct.

Code: Select all
[3PA 51:59] (54.80):     4-1 (80.00%)  8.60 3PM:36.50% 3PA:57.20%
[3PA 51:59] (53.38):     6-2 (75.00%)  9.13 3PM:36.77% 3PA:57.39%
[3PA 50:59] (52.25):     8-4 (66.67%)  7.42 3PM:36.84% 3PA:56.44%
[3PA 49:59] (52.00):     9-4 (69.23%)  7.54 3PM:36.24% 3PA:56.62%
[3PA 48:59] (51.25):     9-7 (56.25%)  3.56 3PM:34.88% 3PA:55.78%
[3PA 47:59] (49.83):    15-9 (62.50%)  6.08 3PM:34.53% 3PA:54.99%
[3PA 46:59] (49.41):   17-10 (62.96%)  5.67 3PM:34.41% 3PA:54.56%
[3PA 45:59] (48.50):   23-11 (67.65%)  5.76 3PM:34.38% 3PA:54.26%
[3PA 44:59] (47.83):   26-14 (65.00%)  5.80 3PM:34.55% 3PA:53.17%
[3PA 43:59] (46.94):   30-19 (61.22%)  5.39 3PM:34.35% 3PA:52.52%
[3PA 42:59] (45.78):   37-27 (57.81%)  4.66 3PM:34.85% 3PA:51.09%
[3PA 41:59] (45.03):   44-32 (57.89%)  5.14 3PM:35.71% 3PA:50.51%
[3PA 40:59] (44.11):   53-40 (56.99%)  4.61 3PM:36.25% 3PA:49.72%
[3PA 39:59] (43.17):   68-46 (59.65%)  4.78 3PM:36.60% 3PA:48.88%
[3PA 38:59] (42.09):   82-62 (56.94%)  3.38 3PM:36.15% 3PA:47.79%
[3PA 37:59] (40.78):  100-94 (51.55%)  1.78 3PM:35.80% 3PA:46.57%
[3PA 36:59] (39.72): 126-123 (50.60%)  1.57 3PM:36.36% 3PA:45.20%
[3PA 35:59] (38.67): 158-162 (49.38%)  1.23 3PM:36.42% 3PA:44.10%
[3PA 34:59] (37.86): 198-190 (51.03%)  1.50 3PM:36.63% 3PA:43.21%
[3PA 33:59] (36.97): 234-240 (49.37%)  0.91 3PM:36.89% 3PA:42.16%
[3PA 32:59] (36.15): 281-287 (49.47%)  1.00 3PM:36.69% 3PA:41.32%
[3PA 31:59] (35.39): 320-347 (47.98%)  0.71 3PM:36.47% 3PA:40.56%
[3PA 30:59] (34.65): 379-393 (49.09%)  0.96 3PM:36.55% 3PA:39.88%
[3PA 29:59] (34.02): 425-445 (48.85%)  0.78 3PM:36.52% 3PA:39.25%
[3PA 28:59] (33.44): 470-493 (48.81%)  0.59 3PM:36.41% 3PA:38.65%
[3PA 27:59] (32.83): 515-549 (48.40%)  0.45 3PM:36.29% 3PA:37.97%
[3PA 26:59] (32.18): 580-596 (49.32%)  0.57 3PM:36.30% 3PA:37.28%
[3PA 25:59] (31.62): 628-646 (49.29%)  0.46 3PM:36.27% 3PA:36.71%
[3PA 24:59] (31.06): 680-696 (49.42%)  0.32 3PM:36.23% 3PA:36.13%
[3PA 23:59] (30.65): 708-742 (48.83%)  0.12 3PM:36.23% 3PA:35.68%
[3PA 22:59] (30.23): 746-777 (48.98%)  0.02 3PM:36.18% 3PA:35.23%
[3PA 21:59] (29.92): 776-801 (49.21%)  0.07 3PM:36.23% 3PA:34.91%
[3PA 20:59] (29.70): 793-819 (49.19%) -0.01 3PM:36.17% 3PA:34.67%
[3PA 19:59] (29.47): 815-832 (49.48%)  0.02 3PM:36.17% 3PA:34.41%
[3PA 18:59] (29.32): 832-838 (49.82%)  0.04 3PM:36.15% 3PA:34.23%
[3PA 17:59] (29.16): 844-848 (49.88%) -0.00 3PM:36.15% 3PA:34.07%
[3PA 16:59] (29.06): 853-851 (50.06%)  0.03 3PM:36.17% 3PA:33.96%
[3PA 15:59] (28.96): 859-857 (50.06%)  0.02 3PM:36.15% 3PA:33.85%
[3PA 14:59] (28.92): 862-859 (50.09%)  0.01 3PM:36.16% 3PA:33.80%
[3PA 13:59] (28.90): 863-860 (50.09%)  0.03 3PM:36.16% 3PA:33.78%
[3PA 12:59] (28.85): 865-863 (50.06%)  0.01 3PM:36.15% 3PA:33.73%
[3PA 11:59] (28.83): 865-865 (50.00%)  0.00 3PM:36.14% 3PA:33.70%
Last edited by dwayne2005 on Sat Mar 31, 2018 8:36 am, edited 2 times in total.
dwayne2005
 
Posts: 240
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 2:00 pm

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby Dee4Three on Sat Mar 31, 2018 8:12 am

What are the 2 point attempts in these games? What's the rebounding differential? How many were open vs contested? Who were the teams playing? What was the 2 point shooting percentage in these games? What were the points off turnovers in these games? What was the point differential? What was it by quarter? What was the turnovers in these games between the two teams? What were the overall shot attempts between the two teams? How many more free throws did the winning team make?

So many things can lead to more shot attempts from three. Again though, the percentage is roughly the same as it was 20-30 years ago. Now you say that teams are winning more when shooting more, wouldn't that possibly be the same if each team took 10 less per game, and rounded out the rest with twos?

The percentage not being higher is all I need to know, basically.... a .36% shot chance isn't as good as a .510%, or .700%.

LeBron James is a career .360% from 10-16 ft. But much higher 3-10 ft in, and 3ft in, as a coach where do I want LeBron taking the majority of his shots? Certainly not within that 10-16 ft.
"I don't know if I practiced more than anybody, but I sure practiced enough. I still wonder if somebody - somewhere - was practicing more than me." - Larry Bird

Check out my YouTube channel

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvHJXrqit8Dc6HBY5P6EmAA
User avatar
Dee4Three
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 6559
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2014 12:34 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby [Q] on Sat Mar 31, 2018 9:37 am

The only redeeming quality about SOME of Lopez's 3 point attempts is that the Lakers as a team aren't great at 3s. Josh Hart is still by far the best shooter from distance for them which I had checked at the beginning of the season with kcp seeming to catch up a bit with his hot streak the past couple of weeks.
Image
User avatar
[Q]
NBA Live 18 Advocate
NLSC Team Member
 
Posts: 12766
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2002 8:20 am
Location: Westside, the best side

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby NovU on Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:29 am

dwayne2005, some solid points. But I have to note your effort on this discussion with Dee4Three is entirely wasted one. Might as well bang your head against wall. It's an established fact that today's EFFICIENT basketball has a lot to do with the style of basketball played today(barrage of 3s, transition, spacing, etc).

That said, today's style of bball likely not worked as well back in the days because rules were that defenders were within arm's length to the offense, otherwise you'd be hit with illegal defense calls. If you recall, the term 'spacing' is a modern era basketball term and was not used or valued back then.

Changes to the style of basketball is not done overnight. Removal of Illegal D, handchecking, and addition of 5 second backing down rule(anti Shaq rule) that eradicated post up plays, teams adjusted and imo it was the Steve Nash and D'Antoni awakening the league.




Whatever Lopez is doing at 3pt range line, it's perhaps a perfect example of that. Post-up player attempting to add 3 point game to resume because teams don't like your post up game but wants you to shoot 3s. It's logical. Lopez is only 29 years old still in prime with proven success as a post up player but teams don't value your strength anymore and wants you to take shots you never did in the past. Times are changing.
THX TO DOPE-JAO FOR THE SPECIAL SIG! <3
Image
Enjoy! <3 Jao
User avatar
NovU
Crap, what am I going to brag about now?
 
Posts: 11211
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 6:50 pm

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby Dee4Three on Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:35 am

NovU wrote:dwayne2005, some solid points. But I have to note your effort on this discussion with Dee4Three is entirely wasted one. Might as well bang your head against wall.


No need of this. Completely uncalled for.

Make your points without bringing in insults, be better than that.

Thank you.
"I don't know if I practiced more than anybody, but I sure practiced enough. I still wonder if somebody - somewhere - was practicing more than me." - Larry Bird

Check out my YouTube channel

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvHJXrqit8Dc6HBY5P6EmAA
User avatar
Dee4Three
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 6559
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2014 12:34 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby Andrew on Sat Mar 31, 2018 11:54 am

Indeed, and I have had to step in several times in recent weeks to ask that the personal attacks and off-topic snarky potshots cease. If they do not, it'll be a ban for a month.

Cut it out.

EDIT: As an addendum, I realise that not everyone is going to see eye to eye and get along 100% of the time. I realise there's some ill-feeling here, and differing points of view to say the least. However, I do not want us to become a toxic community where threads are constantly derailed with personal attacks and squabbles, and people are discouraged from taking part in the conversation either through gatekeeping, or the cultivation of an otherwise hostile/unwelcoming atmosphere.

Furthermore, I have (and continue to) put a lot of work into the NLSC over the years, and tried my best to run the site and our Forum in a way that allows people to express themselves and have a bit of banter (because sometimes debate will get a little heated), but not be nasty to one another. I believe that I've earned sufficient respect and goodwill that when things get too heated and I say "OK, that's enough, dial it back", it will be heeded. Again, not everyone's going to agree or get along with each other all of the time, or particularly like certain other people or what they have to say. That's just the way it is. However, I do ask that everyone at least remain respectful of the site, our rules, myself, and the other moderators/members of staff. To that end, be civil to us and to one another, and if you can't be civil, at least give each other a wide berth.

To put it another way, you don't have to like everyone at the party, but at least respect the host and their house rules. I don't enjoy kicking people out of the party, but I don't want to host people who are looking to start fights, either. Let's put this behind us, move on, and let this thread (and all others) remain about what they're about.
NLSC Webmaster/Administrator
Image
Contact: Email | Twitter
Release Threads: NBA Live 08 | NBA Live 07 | NBA Live 06 | NBA Live 2005 | NBA Live 2004
Story Threads: NBA 2K13 | NBA Live 06 (Part 2) | NBA Live 06 (HOF) | NBA Live 2004 (HOF)
NLSC: Podcast | The Friday Five | Monday Tip-Off | Wayback Wednesday | 20th Anniversary of NBA Live | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube


Support The NLSC Hosting Fund: Patreon | GoFundMe

Image
Like my work? Want to help out with the NLSC Hosting Fund? Please consider leaving a tip!
User avatar
Andrew
45? That's a bad luck number!
Administrator
 
Posts: 103984
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2002 8:51 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby dwayne2005 on Sun Apr 01, 2018 2:16 am

Lakers generally, this season (up to the all star break) are winning 45.45% when shooting 32.9 three point attempts per game, 64.71% when shooting 26.7 attempts per game and 11.11% when shooting 22.4 attempts per game, with the 28% shooting from that range probably being the main culprit.

Brook Lopez shooting more 3's however has been a dramatic boost: when he shoots an average of 6.6 attempts per game, they win 71.43% compared to 42.31% and 11.11% again for the other two splits. He is actually hitting close to 50% when he shoots 6.6 attempts per game, so he usually shoots only when he is streaky.


The data I posted yesterday is misleading.

That method fails due to the fact that it appears the data inverts after the mid point. What the data seems to show is that win percentage increases for dramatically more 3 point attempts and dramatically less. It seems more in favour of higher 3 point shots, but not considerably. And you can see that in that data with win percentage decreasing to about the mid point from 50% across all games to around 48.5% before rising again.

It seems to suggest there is an advantage to not playing an average game.

But there are a couple of curious other things the data also indicates. One is that while win percentage rises for considerably less 3 point attempts, the average points differential is in negative territory suggesting they should be losing not the other way around in contrast to the more attempts taken. The other is that what I observed with lower 3 point made percentage isn't replicated when I stretch out the analysis across 2 additional seasons. Instead, 3 point made percentage rises with the more shots attempted. I don't know why half of this season seems to be at odds with that.

I am always looking for potential bugs in my program, so oddities like this make me curious. I can't imagine it is the program due to the standard way the data is processed.

What I found was that if you split it up into 3 representing above average, median average and below average games, and broaden the average to a +7 attempts from the median it looks like this. I also removed the overtime games from the equation:


Win percentage:

452-422 (51.72)
2299-2348 (49.47)
390-371 (51.25)


Difference:

+2.01
-0.18 (a little bit below the line, as they are a little bit below 50% in win-loss)
-1.19 (so how does winning percent rise to 51.25%? shouldn't the law of averages even it out a bit over about 400 games?*)

*I assume it's 400 games, for some reason can't wrap my head around what is going on exactly with the numbers since the amount of game is being doubled. I should know this. It may work out that way, because it may be counting all wins and losses (double the amount of games; by which I mean a W-L and a L-W I think), not all games. There is also a double count when amassing team and opponent stats. EDIT: It is possible I've erred. The program was adapted for team generation and I had to create specific rules in order for total team stats to generate correct splits, including double up info. That may not be relevant to custom splits.


Three point shooting percent:

36.59
35.64
34.79

Opponent 3 point shooting also rises almost identically. Something else I can't account for? Maybe it is psychological, and seeing the other team shoot so well causes the opposition to raise their game?


Three point attempt percent:

43.12
30.61
18.77


Three point attempts:

37.62
25.86
15.47


Field goal attempts:

87.24
84.48
82.41


Assists:

24.51
22.35
21.12


Team rebounds:

43.86
43.23
42.61


Despite the fact that team rebounds increases, the rebound deficit to the opponents rebound increases the more 3 point attempts that are attempted:

-0.4
0
+0.5


Team offensive rebounds increases:

10.19-9.79 = +0.40
10.03-10.05 = -0.02
10.02-10.37 = -0.35

So it seems 3 point shooting is more likely to result in an offensive rebound than 2 point shooting.


But defensive rebounds decreases:

33.67-34.54 = -0.87
33.20-33.17 = +0.03
32.59-31.74 = +0.85

Probably because of the lack of an inside presence which is why they are shooting more 3's to begin with.


The difference between shot attempts compared with the opponents increases:

87.24-85.81 = +1.43
84.48-84.51 = -0.03
82.41-83.91 = -1.50


Blocks derease slightly with the amount of 3 point shots attempted:

4.79
4.79
4.97

But the difference in blocks increases:

4.79-4.59 = +0.14
4.79-4.78 = +0.01
4.97-5.25 = -0.28

So they dominating the other team in blocks due to the hardness of blocking 3's.


The difference between turnovers:

13.47-13.64 = -0.17
13.61-13.60 = +0.01
13.62-13.52 = -0.10

Steals are just turnovers, so...


Significantly fewer free throw attempts:

21.28
22.75
24.03


And free throws made:

16.42
17.38
18.54


Despite this, scoring efficiency rises so they are playing more efficient points per shot basketball:

1.127 points per shot (accounting for free throws)
1.098 points per shot (accounting for free throws)
1.084 points per shot (accounting for free throws)


Teams that shoot a lot more 3's also foul more, for some reason:

20.07
19.92
19.54


Compared with the opponents, the difference is double:

20.07-19.23
19.92-19.96
19.54-20.29


Don't want to task my software to get up the 2 point percentage as it takes a long time for some reason to process 3 seasons, but a rough calculation:

51%
(pass)
49%

So 2 point efficiency rises with the fewer shots they get, possibly helped by offensive rebounds.
Last edited by dwayne2005 on Sun Apr 01, 2018 5:44 am, edited 4 times in total.
dwayne2005
 
Posts: 240
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 2:00 pm

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby Jackal on Sun Apr 01, 2018 2:47 am

What a heartbreaker. Easily the most entertaining 4th quarter played by the Lakers all year. Given I make it a point to catch every Laker game, that's saying a lot about that 4th quarter group. Caruso and Zubac were putting on a show. God damn. Giannis is such a beast, unbelievable player. Bucks got a good one.

Hope Ingram's all right, that hit to the neck was indeed a nasty one. Man, I really love this team. They never quit and it's just so refreshing after the last few "oh well" seasons.
Image
User avatar
Jackal
 
Posts: 14804
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2003 2:59 am

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby [Q] on Sun Apr 01, 2018 5:51 pm

I thought about stopping watching when they were down 21 lol bit I had nothing better to do so I left it on

I really liked the squad at the end with kuz randle ingram hart and caruso (ball when healthy). I hope to see that squad on the floor for many years to come
Image
User avatar
[Q]
NBA Live 18 Advocate
NLSC Team Member
 
Posts: 12766
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2002 8:20 am
Location: Westside, the best side

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby Jackal on Sun Apr 01, 2018 8:55 pm

[Q] wrote:I really liked the squad at the end with kuz randle ingram hart and caruso (ball when healthy). I hope to see that squad on the floor for many years to come


Right? Hart is so good, dude rebounds, shoots threes and is a really good defender. Totally made KCP expendable. The Lakers scouting department really has done an amazing job with Buss & West spearheading them.

Coincidentally that's my preferred line up in 2K17, Randle-Kuzma-Ingram-Hart & Ball. Run all day! If only the Lakers could trade away Deng as easily as in the game. :lol:

Take a moment to say Randle is a beast. He was so frustrating last year and sometimes off the bench beginning of this season. Very happy to see he's really balling out and hope he gets paid by the Lakers and sustains his efforts to stay a 20-10 guy.
Image
User avatar
Jackal
 
Posts: 14804
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2003 2:59 am

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby dwayne2005 on Mon Apr 02, 2018 3:25 am

I'm more confident than ever with the numbers posted. I reworked my program after I saw some logical oversights and countering those logical oversights produced different figures (although in line with the numbers posted). After fixing those oversights, I came across more oversights. After fixing those two errors, I came up with the exact same figures. It is all logical and seems to be corroborated on a game by game basis. The reason why it is doubling up is because it is team-games. (2 sides to every game; eg. if you want to sort 3 point attempts, you need to double it up because there are two teams playing.)

My program was adapted for these stats. As a result, I inserted a lot of switches. Those switches create a chain of confusing double-negatives that I grew tired trying to understand and eventually just selected at random until it produced the correct results. It is the least tested feature. I broke it early on and only fixed it recently.

I can't see any reason why it wouldn't be producing correct results. Maybe the positive winning gain for fewer 3 pointers while getting an increasingly negative points differential just reflects the fact that the two point game benefits close games and is unable to bridge the gap in blow outs (more likely exchanging shots of equal value). Possibly, the thing you can take away from it it is better to have range shooters without an inside game than a low post game without range shooters in terms of points differential, but maybe not so much win percent (marginally better, but not as singificant). When you think about it, teams with inside games are also less likely to have bigger win margins. So smaller win margins and bigger losing margins, but overall increasing victories. It might also be indicative that the opposition is reluctant to shoot 3's when in the lead unless necessary, and that this potential may even be reversible if that was the case?
dwayne2005
 
Posts: 240
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 2:00 pm

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby [Q] on Mon Apr 02, 2018 8:23 am

Jackal wrote:
[Q] wrote:I really liked the squad at the end with kuz randle ingram hart and caruso (ball when healthy). I hope to see that squad on the floor for many years to come


Right? Hart is so good, dude rebounds, shoots threes and is a really good defender. Totally made KCP expendable. The Lakers scouting department really has done an amazing job with Buss & West spearheading them.

Coincidentally that's my preferred line up in 2K17, Randle-Kuzma-Ingram-Hart & Ball. Run all day! If only the Lakers could trade away Deng as easily as in the game. :lol:

Take a moment to say Randle is a beast. He was so frustrating last year and sometimes off the bench beginning of this season. Very happy to see he's really balling out and hope he gets paid by the Lakers and sustains his efforts to stay a 20-10 guy.

I can't say enough good things about Hart. They sorely missed him when his hand was broken. He is just so efficient, does everything the right way, and hustles so hard. All things this team is badly needing. He's also the teams best 3 point shooter and one of the best if not the best perimeter defender. And he doesn't Jack up 3s like kcp or Lopez and he actually likes taking it to the rim. To say he's underrated would be the understatement of the year.

Randle has definitely proven himself a "Max" player as a 20&10 guy now and his dominance down low. If Brook leaves, they'll desperately need a post player and it would be shortsighted to let randle go for a chance at another max player.
Image
User avatar
[Q]
NBA Live 18 Advocate
NLSC Team Member
 
Posts: 12766
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2002 8:20 am
Location: Westside, the best side

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby Andrew on Mon Apr 02, 2018 9:57 am

Considering the potential of the young players, that brings us back to Paul George and this offseason. Would it be the worst thing in the world if they missed out on signing him, or elected not to pursue him? Is he truly a player worth building around, more so than any of the young guys potentially could be?
NLSC Webmaster/Administrator
Image
Contact: Email | Twitter
Release Threads: NBA Live 08 | NBA Live 07 | NBA Live 06 | NBA Live 2005 | NBA Live 2004
Story Threads: NBA 2K13 | NBA Live 06 (Part 2) | NBA Live 06 (HOF) | NBA Live 2004 (HOF)
NLSC: Podcast | The Friday Five | Monday Tip-Off | Wayback Wednesday | 20th Anniversary of NBA Live | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube


Support The NLSC Hosting Fund: Patreon | GoFundMe

Image
Like my work? Want to help out with the NLSC Hosting Fund? Please consider leaving a tip!
User avatar
Andrew
45? That's a bad luck number!
Administrator
 
Posts: 103984
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2002 8:51 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby Dee4Three on Tue Apr 03, 2018 2:12 am

Andrew wrote:Considering the potential of the young players, that brings us back to Paul George and this offseason. Would it be the worst thing in the world if they missed out on signing him, or elected not to pursue him? Is he truly a player worth building around, more so than any of the young guys potentially could be?


Are you sold on Ingram?
"I don't know if I practiced more than anybody, but I sure practiced enough. I still wonder if somebody - somewhere - was practicing more than me." - Larry Bird

Check out my YouTube channel

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvHJXrqit8Dc6HBY5P6EmAA
User avatar
Dee4Three
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 6559
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2014 12:34 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby Andrew on Tue Apr 03, 2018 10:17 am

Randle seems to be further along. There are obviously still some question marks all around, and I usually advocate for proven talent over players who still have a lot of What Ifs, but at this point I'm not sure if George truly is a franchise player. If the Lakers decided not to pursue him, or miss out on him, I don't know that it'd be a terrible outcome, given the players they have to develop and the promise they've shown.
NLSC Webmaster/Administrator
Image
Contact: Email | Twitter
Release Threads: NBA Live 08 | NBA Live 07 | NBA Live 06 | NBA Live 2005 | NBA Live 2004
Story Threads: NBA 2K13 | NBA Live 06 (Part 2) | NBA Live 06 (HOF) | NBA Live 2004 (HOF)
NLSC: Podcast | The Friday Five | Monday Tip-Off | Wayback Wednesday | 20th Anniversary of NBA Live | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube


Support The NLSC Hosting Fund: Patreon | GoFundMe

Image
Like my work? Want to help out with the NLSC Hosting Fund? Please consider leaving a tip!
User avatar
Andrew
45? That's a bad luck number!
Administrator
 
Posts: 103984
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2002 8:51 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby dwayne2005 on Wed Apr 04, 2018 3:29 am

Not Lakers, I'll just finish on my 3 point analysis and be done with being off-topic.

My program now can split up by percent. Could do this manually but it was inconvenient so I didn't bother.

This creates even splits for all splits rather than the difference from the mean measure which highlighted extremes for the above and below splits. I also have more control over the dispersion of the splits (by adding to the difference from the means, it would grab any number of games that had those values).

I have set it to split by 3 point attempt percent instead of 3 point attempts per game, so overtimes which increase the number of shots no longer distort results (and thus no longer requires filtering out) nor does pace of game.

I have captured larger splits which has changed the results. No longer is the most dominant 2 point shooting games in positive territory in win percent, but is an even 50.00% with a negative points differential of -1.04 points per game. This change might also have something to do with accounting for pace by using attempt percent instead.

It is also clear that the success is largely to do with 3 point percent increases, not necessarily number of attempts. If I analyze makes or percent instead, the top bracket rises to about 75% in win-loss so even though a small increase in 3 point percentage it may easily account for the small win-loss here of 52%. If I filter games with ranges of 30-40%, the pool of games seems to become too limited for reliable data.

Format:
42.51%: W694-L636 52.18% (+1.50) 3PM:37.26% ORB:21.47% EFF:1.143
(average 3PA% for range): WINS-LOSSES and WIN% (points differential; average winning/losing margin) 3PM: (3 point percentage) ORB: (offensive rebound percentage from total offensive rebounds and opponents defensive rebounds) EFF: (scoring efficiency, a variation fo true shooting percentage that reads as points per shot accounting for free throws)

42.51%: W694-L636 52.18% (+1.50) 3PM:37.26% ORB:21.47% EFF:1.143
34.94%: W660-L670 49.62% (+0.34) 3PM:35.67% ORB:22.75% EFF:1.108
30.75%: W666-L664 50.08% (+0.12) 3PM:35.33% ORB:23.22% EFF:1.096
26.66%: W640-L690 48.12% (-0.92) 3PM:35.17% ORB:23.83% EFF:1.081
20.40%: W665-L665 50.00% (-1.04) 3PM:34.06% ORB:24.85% EFF:1.067

The numbers show that the dominance only occurs in roughly the top 20% of 3PA% games (not sure if the trend dramatically increases before or after but it looks like after).

Counter to my previous claims, which I immediately identified as wrong but haven't corrected until now, 3 pointers do not result in an increase in offensive rebounds since they are countered by an increase in defensive rebounds by the opponents. It just reflects that there were more rebounds up for grabs in 3 point dominant games. The two point game increases the offensive rebound percentages, so it's the other way around. Which is surprising to me since there is an increasing likelihood it will bounce away further from the basket, but it may simply be countered by the fact that inside players are mismatched. It is still very interesting that the opponents rebounding percentages mirror the teams rebounding percentages despite on the average for the range taking an almost average amount of 3 point attempts.
dwayne2005
 
Posts: 240
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 2:00 pm

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby Jackal on Thu Apr 05, 2018 3:41 am

Nice job by Randle taking it upon himself to "run" the offense with Ball/Thomas & Ingram being out. Says a lot when two twenty year olds make the game that much more watchable as a fan. Good stuff going in to the future. Bummer Randle just missed out on the triple double.

Tyler Ennis has got to be my most disliked Laker ever. That list includes Dwight Howard.

Watching the Warriors vs Thunder makes me a bit worried about George. So many fumbles and just doesn't seem in to it. I wish he'd be more consistent at this stage of his career.
Image
User avatar
Jackal
 
Posts: 14804
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2003 2:59 am

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby [Q] on Thu Apr 05, 2018 3:46 am

Jackal wrote:Tyler Ennis has got to be my most disliked Laker ever. That list includes Dwight Howard.

Lol he's up there with vujacic
Image
User avatar
[Q]
NBA Live 18 Advocate
NLSC Team Member
 
Posts: 12766
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2002 8:20 am
Location: Westside, the best side

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby Jackal on Thu Apr 05, 2018 3:51 am

How dare you disrespect "The Machine" like that?

phpBB [video]
Image
User avatar
Jackal
 
Posts: 14804
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2003 2:59 am

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby [Q] on Thu Apr 05, 2018 4:20 am

More like "Slapping Machine". Dude played no defense lol
This girl in college was in love with him and she eventually unfriended me on facebook because I wouldn't stop saying how bad he was
Image
User avatar
[Q]
NBA Live 18 Advocate
NLSC Team Member
 
Posts: 12766
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2002 8:20 am
Location: Westside, the best side

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby Jackal on Thu Apr 05, 2018 10:37 pm

Credit where credit is due, Ennis played a good game against SA. In fact, that line up of Zu-Frye-Kuz-Hart-Ennis really won that game. Great effort by them and glad to sweep the season series against the short-handed Spurs.

This team is a joy to watch man, can't say it often enough of how much fun I have watching them. Great job by the front office and coaching staff to get these guys trying hard game in and game out.
Image
User avatar
Jackal
 
Posts: 14804
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2003 2:59 am

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby [Q] on Fri Apr 06, 2018 2:36 am

A broken clock is still right twice a day I guess lol
Image
User avatar
[Q]
NBA Live 18 Advocate
NLSC Team Member
 
Posts: 12766
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2002 8:20 am
Location: Westside, the best side

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby Jeffx on Sun Apr 08, 2018 4:29 am

Andrew wrote:It comes down to good decision making, really. Stephen Curry pulling up for a three-pointer on a 2-on-1 break? He makes that work a lot of the time. Brook Lopez stopping and popping in the same situation? Obviously he can knock them down, but not necessarily the look you want.


If I was the coach, I'd read Brook's ass the riot act. Get down low and do work - f*** that 3-point bs. Call me old-fashioned and out of touch, but I hate seeing bigs pull up from long range.
Jeffx
 
Posts: 2663
Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2002 4:09 am
Location: Bronx, New York

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby shadowgrin on Thu Apr 12, 2018 6:19 am

So Tyler Ennis is so shit that Lakers had to call up a 32-year old from the D-League?
HE'S USING HYPNOSIS!
JaoSming2KTV wrote:its fun on a bun
shadowgrin
Doesn't negotiate with terrorists. NLSC's Jefferson Davis. The Questioneer
 
Posts: 22994
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 6:21 am
Location: In your mind

Re: Lakers Thread

Postby Dee4Three on Thu Apr 12, 2018 8:56 am

shadowgrin wrote:So Tyler Ennis is so shit that Lakers had to call up a 32-year old from the D-League?


Or a great publicity stunt by the Lakers that worked out beautifully. Not only did they have the story of calling Andre up, but he also killed it in his first ever NBA game. Would have happened whether Ennis was on the roster or not.

Good for Andre, his story is motivating to a lot of people.
"I don't know if I practiced more than anybody, but I sure practiced enough. I still wonder if somebody - somewhere - was practicing more than me." - Larry Bird

Check out my YouTube channel

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvHJXrqit8Dc6HBY5P6EmAA
User avatar
Dee4Three
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 6559
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2014 12:34 pm
Location: New Hampshire, USA

PreviousNext

Return to NBA & Basketball

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests