Quick Grades: Spurs at Thunder - Nov. 14

[lefty]

You can use it for someone like Kobe who is an assassin and say that he is Ice Cold, as in he has no conscience and he's killing it, but usually Ice Cold is said when you're shooting poorly.

Ah ok, I'll remember that

So Timvp wasn't totally right either

Algerian.

Some things you just don't forget; like when you make a joke about Ime Udoka's badassedness and his ability to destroy a team of Algerians.

Hey I can't blame Udoka on that

My fellow countrymen deserved it

[Spurs Brazil]

Bonner was fantastic and TP with another great game

RJ, Hill and TD did a very good job on D and the team rotated very well.

The last 2 games the D was much better and I hope they keep improving

[kace]

What an amateur mistake. I suppose you ignored the fact that Ginobili went a perfect 11-11 at the free throw line. When you go in for a basket, get fouled, and make those 2 free throws, it's equivalent to adding +1 to both FGM and FGA, but this is not directly reflected in the stat line.

All you need to know is that Ginobili scored 21 points on 15 shots which is equivalent to shooting 10-15 with 0 free throws. When you look at his shooting in those terms, it doesn't look nearly as bad as you make it out to be.

it was 14 shots but don't forget to add the possessions used for the FT as you explained above.

an easy way to compare is to act like if all the shots were 2 pts. gino would be 10.5-19 (21 points on 19 possessions used ) that way (55 %) and Tony 12-18 ( 24 pts on 18 possessions) (67 %). not sure if it's really accurate but that helps.
don't know if the true shooting stat uses the same logic. should be more complex i guess.

[Solid D]

The Spurs made some great defensive adjustments but I wonder how close this game would have been had Spurs matchup nightmare, Jeff Green, been anything close to 90 % healthy. Green's departure to the exercise bike corresponded with the lead change and point separation.

[mingus]

The Spurs made some great defensive adjustments but I wonder how close this game would have been had Spurs matchup nightmare, Jeff Green, been anything close to 90 % healthy. Green's departure to the exercise bike corresponded with the lead change and point separation.

Green is a tough guard but i thnk his scoring was due more to just bad defense. Blair in the first half was complete defensively. i think i counted 12 points that were scored because he was slow to rotate. Jeff Green had two threes in the corner because Blair left him wide open.

[PDXSpursFan]

Red Rocket's value is sky rock now - time to trade him

[jestersmash]

it was 14 shots but don't forget to add the possessions used for the FT as you explained above.

an easy way to compare is to act like if all the shots were 2 pts. gino would be 10.5-19 (21 points on 19 possessions used ) that way (55 %) and Tony 12-18 ( 24 pts on 18 possessions) (67 %). not sure if it's really accurate but that helps.
don't know if the true shooting stat uses the same logic. should be more complex i guess.

Yeah, that's a good way to look at it, I agree with your take. Logically, your way seems to be a better way to assess offensive efficiency (points scored on x possessions rather than finding the "equivalent" points scored on x shots with 0-0 FT).

Either way, my point still stands. That amateur on the previous page looked only at "4-15" and decided that shooting was "awful," and then rebuked with some nonsense about situational versus non-situational. I have no earthly idea how this "situational vs non-situational" dichotomy helps his case at all. It certainly doesn't help that will_spurs simply cited this dichotomy and didn't bother to explain its actual relevance to his hypothesis (that Parker - with similar numbers -would have received a "C+") The fact is Ginobili was reasonably efficient on the offense because he largely mitigated his 4-15 by going 11-11 at the FT line. "4-15" therefore becomes irrelevant when assessing a player's final score for a game. If Parker went 4-15 from the floor but 11-11 from the FT line to score 21 points on 19 possessions, he'd almost certainly get a similar grade.

[mathbzh]

don't know if the true shooting stat uses the same logic. should be more complex i guess.

It does. And just for the record the formula is Pts/(2*(FGA+0.44FTA)).

The 0.44 is because usually you shoot by pair (would be a 0.5 coefficient) but is adjusted for other situations (3FT, and1, technical) when the number of pt/possession is not the same.

Edit:
For that game It gives 56 TS% for Gino and 68 for Parker.

[will_spurs]

Either way, my point still stands. That amateur on the previous page looked only at "4-15" and decided that shooting was "awful," and then rebuked with some nonsense about situational versus non-situational. I have no earthly idea how this "situational vs non-situational" dichotomy helps his case at all. It certainly doesn't help that will_spurs simply cited this dichotomy and didn't bother to explain its actual relevance to his hypothesis (that Parker - with similar numbers -would have received a "C+") The fact is Ginobili was reasonably efficient on the offense because he largely mitigated his 4-15 by going 11-11 at the FT line. "4-15" therefore becomes irrelevant when assessing a player's final score for a game. If Parker went 4-15 from the floor but 11-11 from the FT line to score 21 points on 19 possessions, he'd almost certainly get a similar grade.

The only way your point still stands is that you have no point. 4-14 shooting is awful shooting, period, regardless of how many FTAs the refs decide to give a player (that's the situational part of it, apparently a bit too complex). My point is simple: if you shoot 28% from the field, you're doing something wrong, typically bad shot selection (or just poor shooting day, which can happen too).

BTW I'm interested in the maths behind "going 4-15 from the floor but 11-11 from the FT line to score 21 points on 19 possessions"...

[jestersmash]

The only way your point still stands is that you have no point. 4-14 shooting is awful shooting, period, regardless of how many FTAs the refs decide to give a player (that's the situational part of it, apparently a bit too complex). My point is simple: if you shoot 28% from the field, you're doing something wrong, typically bad shot selection (or just poor shooting day, which can happen too).

BTW I'm interested in the maths behind "going 4-15 from the floor but 11-11 from the FT line to score 21 points on 19 possessions"...

You're an idiot. Sorry.

I can't explain it any more clearly than I have. You're wrong and everybody here can plainly see that you're wrong.

I bet if somebody went 0-4 from the field but 25-25 from the FT line you'd say he had a "poor shooting night" despite scoring 25 points on (4+x) possessions where x = # of times the player took a shot and got fouled. And, you'd still be wrong.

When you go 0-4 from the field and 3-25 from the FT line, that's when you have a "poor shooting night."

You don't have a poor shooting night when your true shooting percentage is > 50. Period. Done. There's nothing to argue, the number is there, and yet you're too simple-minded to fathom how free throws play into assessing a player's shooting efficiency/percentage. I'm sorry that you can't wrap your head around such a simple concept, I really am, but I'm not going to waste any more time trying to explain this.

[Dice]

BTW I'm interested in the maths behind "going 4-15 from the floor but 11-11 from the FT line to score 21 points on 19 possessions"...

2 of his 4 made field goal attempts were for 3. 3+3+2+2= 10

11 free throws 10+11=21

15 shot attempts + 4 assists = 19 possessions

And yes, I did use a calculator to check my work.

[jestersmash]

2 of his 4 made field goal attempts were for 3. 3+3+2+2= 10

11 free throws 10+11=21

15 shot attempts + 4 assists = 19 possessions

And yes, I did use a calculator to check my work.

B..b..but 4/15 = .26! Gosh darn dont be foolin me with yer fancy addin machine wizardry and mathemagical mania

[TJastal]

To be fair to will_spurs, 4-14 isn't good shooting, he is right about that. However, when you factor in that two of his shots were 3's, and 11-11 from the foul line then his overall contribution offensively is more than adequate.

[kace]

You're an idiot. Sorry.

I can't explain it any more clearly than I have. You're wrong and everybody here can plainly see that you're wrong.

I bet if somebody went 0-4 from the field but 25-25 from the FT line you'd say he had a "poor shooting night" despite scoring 25 points on (4+x) possessions where x = # of times the player took a shot and got fouled. And, you'd still be wrong.

When you go 0-4 from the field and 3-25 from the FT line, that's when you have a "poor shooting night."

You don't have a poor shooting night when your true shooting percentage is > 50. Period. Done. There's nothing to argue, the number is there, and yet you're too simple-minded to fathom how free throws play into assessing a player's shooting efficiency/percentage. I'm sorry that you can't wrap your head around such a simple concept, I really am, but I'm not going to waste any more time trying to explain this.

honestly, it all leads to the fact that you need to watch games to know if a player played well or not, the box score isn't enough. and that's a good thing, i think everybody will agree.

if a player is 3-10 FG and 12-14 FT because he's defended very agressively and had to shoot in some desperate situations because he was hot and his team needed him to take the shot, i guess that's a good game. If it's because of bad choices or cold hand, well, that's not exactly the same, even if the FT can moderate the poor FG % in overall efficiency.

You'd need to factor the effects of FT (fouls for the opponents and more FT or players benched), where they come from (intentional foul at the end of a game or directly caused by the player who made them) and also the effects of missed shots (rebounds and fast break allowed) to be very complete about the topic.

3/6 from 2 points or 2/6 from 3 points is the same in scoring but with more rebounds (and possibly fast breaks) allowed with the 3 points but also with more help to spread the floor and possibly score more inside with penetration or bigs.

I watched the game and i thought that manu was good and useful. not as good as he was the others games (but hey, he's at an excellent level right now) but better than the 4-14 stat alone would indicate.

[jestersmash]

honestly, it all leads to the fact that you need to watch games to know if a player played well or not, the box score isn't enough. and that's a good thing, i think everybody will agree.

if a player is 3-10 FG and 12-14 FT because he's defended very agressively and had to shoot in some desperate situations because he was hot and his team needed him to take the shot, i guess that's a good game. If it's because of bad choices or cold hand, well, that's not exactly the same, even if the FT can moderate the poor FG % in overall efficiency.

You'd need to factor the effects of FT (fouls for the opponents and more FT or players benched), where they come from (intentional foul at the end of a game or directly caused by the player who made them) and also the effects of missed shots (rebounds and fast break allowed) to be very complete about the topic.

3/6 from 2 points or 2/6 from 3 points is the same in scoring but with more rebounds (and possibly fast breaks) allowed with the 3 points but also with more help to spread the floor and possibly score more inside with penetration or bigs.

I watched the game and i thought that manu was good and useful. not as good as he was the others games (but hey, he's at an excellent level right now) but better than the 4-14 stat alone would indicate.

Agreed.

And, as I recall, he didn't take bad shots either.

You guys want to see a bad, ill-advised 3 point shot. See Kobe's 40 foot 3 point shot off a no-call offensive foul (push off) with ~30 seconds left in regulation.