#LetBonnerShoot Worked, Matt Bonner in 3 Point Contest vs Novak

[Ice009]

I decided to drop in for a rare appearance, because I knew Bonner finally got into the 3P contest.

All the people who claim that Bonner's release is so ridiculously slow, and that he couldn't possibly compete in a 3P Contest because of it? you. There's no nicer way to put it... just You. You don't know about shooting, or what a quick release looks like. You never did. (You even argued when Sean Elliott said that he has a quick release, as if Sean doesn't know anything about shooting.) You know who you are.

Hopefully the three point contest helps him with his in game shooting. It was a pretty darn good showing from him.

He did say at start of the season (when he wasn't shooting well or getting minutes on the court) that he has been working hard on a quicker release jumpshot. If it wasn't a problem, then he wouldn't have said it or have been working on one.

[foodie2]

I decided to drop in for a rare appearance, because I knew Bonner finally got into the 3P contest.

All the people who claim that Bonner's release is so ridiculously slow, and that he couldn't possibly compete in a 3P Contest because of it? you. There's no nicer way to put it... just You. You don't know about shooting, or what a quick release looks like. You never did. (You even argued when Sean Elliott said that he has a quick release, as if Sean doesn't know anything about shooting.) You know who you are.

Bonner acquitted himself extremely well. Facing down a score of 23, he managed to drop 20, which would win most years. I've seen other "clutch" shooters totally collapse in the finals, when the first guy puts up just a decent number. I remember Terry Porter scoring 11 or 12 in a finals. Craig Hodges scored 25 in the first round, and then pissed up a 12 when Bird dropped a 22 on him. ... I don't think Reggie Miller ever scored more than 19.

That being said, the next time Bonner is in the playoffs, he WILL be a brick machine, and a pylon on defense.


And, finally, I come back and read one freaking thread, and see the abortion below. Maybe it's just because I've been away, but it has taken over in my mind as the stupidest post I have ever read, here or anywhere else. Yes, it gets bonus points because the troll who wrote it has obviously been in some math classes (or read a lot of Wikipedia articles). But I've never, never seen anyone go so far to pretend to be an expert, and still put up something so utterly non-sequitir. I started listing all the things wrong with it, and it literally gave me a headache. Seriously... what the do you mean that "the shots follow the binomial distribution"? I'm speechless.

For the record, it's physics, not luck that determines whether a shot goes in. And, among the hundred or so things wrong with your post, you apparently presume that a flat shot has the same "chance" to go in as one that has a lot of air under it? If stupidity was criminal, you'd be facing capital punishment. I'd pink your dumb ass, just on principles.

I actually agree with most of what you wrote, but if you're going to write several paragraphs of rant about how someone else is stupid, you should run a spell check. You spelled "non sequitur" wrong.

[Obstructed_View]

At least the people that think the Spurs would be better off with Novak are going to shut up.

[Drz]

And, finally, I come back and read one freaking thread, and see the abortion below. Maybe it's just because I've been away, but it has taken over in my mind as the stupidest post I have ever read, here or anywhere else. Yes, it gets bonus points because the troll who wrote it has obviously been in some math classes (or read a lot of Wikipedia articles). But I've never, never seen anyone go so far to pretend to be an expert, and still put up something so utterly non-sequitir. I started listing all the things wrong with it, and it literally gave me a headache. Seriously... what the do you mean that "the shots follow the binomial distribution"? I'm speechless.

For the record, it's physics, not luck that determines whether a shot goes in. And, among the hundred or so things wrong with your post, you apparently presume that a flat shot has the same "chance" to go in as one that has a lot of air under it? If stupidity was criminal, you'd be facing capital punishment. I'd pink your dumb ass, just on principles.

LOL! If you're going to tell someone how dumb they are, perhaps you should spell-check and grammar-check your post. (edit: foodie2 = wizard)

To answer your questions:
1. "what the do you mean that 'the shots follow the binomial distribution'" -- I'm confused by this question, because of the many things I talk about that are arguable, that one is a very simple fact. What do you not understand about it? Do you know what statistical distributions are?
2. "you apparently presume that a flat shot has the same "chance" to go in as one that has a lot of air under it?" -- No.

In all honesty, I really don't understand what you thought was such an "abortion."

[Joyrider]

Am I the only that thought, after the first set in the second round, that Kyrie was gonna make every single one of them? His stroke was smooth. Sorry, Matty B.

[Trainwreck2100]

Red Mamba? I think they've mixed up Matt "Red Rocket" Bonner and Brian "White Mamba" Scalabrine....

[therealtruth]

At least the people that think the Spurs would be better off with Novak are going to shut up.

I'm not sure. Novak was missing alot of shots and still got 17. If he doesn't go cold he probably wins the compe ion.

[hooperflash]

Red Mamba? I think they've mixed up Matt "Red Rocket" Bonner and Brian "White Mamba" Scalabrine....

Nah, Kobe dubbed that Matt was the Red Mamba... They're just rolling with it.

[DMC]

Bonner only missed until it didn't matter, then he hit every one.

[Drz]

I'm not sure. Novak was missing alot of shots and still got 17. If he doesn't go cold he probably wins the compe ion.

IMO, it's pretty definite that Novak is slightly better than Bonner offensively, and that Bonner is mildly better than Novak defensively. Net, it's close, but Bonner gets a small edge.

[spurs10]

Nah, Kobe dubbed that Matt was the Red Mamba... They're just rolling with it.

I thought Tim called him that...

[spurraider21]

IMO, it's pretty definite that Novak is slightly better than Bonner offensively, and that Bonner is mildly better than Novak defensively. Net, it's close, but Bonner gets a small edge.

yeah pretty much. bonner a bit better on D, novak with the quicker release. they bring about the same value. that said, bonner is just a bigger dude, which gives him the advantage in a tie

[ElNono]

1. "what the do you mean that 'the shots follow the binomial distribution'" -- I'm confused by this question, because of the many things I talk about that are arguable, that one is a very simple fact. What do you not understand about it? Do you know what statistical distributions are?

In all honesty, I really don't understand what you thought was such an "abortion."

Building an argument over statistics then turning around and flatly stating that previous performances are not indicative of future performances is prima facie an argumentative abortion.

[Drz]

Building an argument over statistics then turning around and flatly stating that previous performances are not indicative of future performances is prima facie an argumentative abortion.

??

Was that directed at me?

I'm particularly confused about the "flatly stating that previous performances are not indicative of future performances" part. I didn't see anyone state that, especially not myself. As I'm sure you recall from our previous encounters, my career is in statistics (modeling, particularly). There's no way I'd make that statement, or even allude to it.

[hooperflash]

I thought Tim called him that...

It all started when Kobe was asked to tweet his thoughts about the 81pt game he had in Toronto, while it was being shown on NBATV.. Someone asked a question (via Tweet) about Brian Scalabrine, Kobe then replied with saying that the White Mamba wasn't present, the Red Mamba was in the building that day. (Matt Bonner)

[ElNono]

I'm particularly confused about the "flatly stating that previous performances are not indicative of future performances" part. I didn't see anyone state that, especially not myself.

so it's an inarguable FACT that some players will have been less lucky in the past, and that it does not tell you anything about how they will perform in the future.

As I'm sure you recall from our previous encounters, my career is in statistics (modeling, particularly). There's no way I'd make that statement, or even allude to it.

Every time you asks us to dismiss his 5 seasons of playoff performance drop you're essentially asking us that. What's the point of building a house of cards with statistics if we are to summarily cherry pick what to keep and what to dismiss?

I'm aware statistics is your forte, but we're analyzing a sport that is obviously non-deterministic. And chief among the reasons it's not, is because there's that pesky human factor.

Ultimately, that you think the influence of such a factor is small (or even it's weight quantifiable at all under different scenarios), is simply opinion. It's not based on statistics, regressions, hard math or anything. Just a gut feeling. And it's a gut feeling that, when applied to Matt up to now, just doesn't add up.

[Drz]

Ah, understood. I agree and concede to your points, particularly the point about how big or small the element is is just my opinion. We can use math to answer that question of course, but that'd be quite the circular argument. Kind of like saying we know God exists because of the Bible (anyone want to take the bait... anyone? anyone? ).

Anyway, with that, I retire this ID from Spurstalk. It's too connectable to my real life name, and I'm kind of a butt on here. I'll go back to my lurking ways, and maybe return in the future in a less Bonneriffic form.

'twas fun, most of the time. Bonner on.

[ElNono]

Under the current house of cards, if Matt does well in the next playoffs, all of the following will be true...

A) He got luckier than in the past (chance)
B) He performed to his statistical career average (giving credence to the statistical argument)
C) Past performances are not indicative of future performances (killing the statistical argument)

That's some quality hedging right there, or an abortion as arguments go.

[ElNono]

Ah, understood. I agree and concede to your points, particularly the point about how big or small the element is is just my opinion. We can use math to answer that question of course, but that'd be quite the circular argument. Kind of like saying we know God exists because of the Bible (anyone want to take the bait... anyone? anyone? ).

Anyway, with that, I retire this ID from Spurstalk. It's too connectable to my real life name, and I'm kind of a butt on here. I'll go back to my lurking ways, and maybe return in the future in a less Bonneriffic form.

'twas fun, most of the time. Bonner on.

Well, make a new alias and hang around. Even if too Bonner-lover for me, still quality conversations can be had

[Obstructed_View]

I'm not sure. Novak was missing alot of shots and still got 17. If he doesn't go cold he probably wins the compe ion.

I suppose, but by that logic you could say that if he made all his shots and could dribble, pass and defend he'd be an all star. The real truth is that he doesn't and isn't.

[hater]

no math can explain the clutch gene. Either you have it or you don't

Bonner absolutely does not possess the clutch gene.

[ace3g]

if you want to buy the Red Mamba shirt:

http://shop.themountain.me/red-mamba/

[bklynspursfan]

Red Mamba- Clutch....

David Locke ‏@Lockedonsports
Three players in NBA over 50% from 3 in 4th quarter (min 15 makes) Kyle Korver, Kevin Martin and Matt Bonner

[slick'81]

i called the win dammit matt soo close

[Seventyniner]

Forgive me if this has been posted:

http://www.48minutesof .com/the-s...-the-red-mamba