Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Everything Derozan

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

  • MACK11 wrote: View Post
    Okay I've got a healthy alternative, If Lowry signs on the dotted line for 6mill/yr He gets a lifetime supply of Celery
    Gotta be careful not to exceed the celery cap though.
    twitter.com/dhackett1565

    Comment


    • Seriously though, 10M per year would be great. With the cap jumping up, I'm not nearly as concerned about re-signing him as I was at the start of this year.
      twitter.com/dhackett1565

      Comment


      • From ESPN, http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/story...e-nba-playoffs

        The insights of analytics are constantly changing because the market is constantly changing. As teams smarten up about the payoffs of certain shots, they'll become more sought after on the open market. It's Economics 101. And as demand for certain types of players rises, so, too, will the price of those players.

        At some point, the 3-point shooting bubble will burst and other shots will become more valuable. There is a natural cycle to these things. In the same way that players with high on-base percentages ceased to be a market inefficiency after "Moneyball" became a national bestseller, guys like Kyle Korver will be making $10 million annually, not the current $6 million. And then the market will react.

        And soon, the midrange shot won't be passé for long.

        "That's the very nature of market dynamics," Morey says. "Its question is not 'What is the best shot?' It's 'What is the best relative to what everyone else thinks?' That's the challenge that you're trying to solve."

        Right now, the market doesn't regard a midrange shooter like Aldridge. But that can change. The NBA is a copycat league. If the Blazers beat the Rockets in this series thanks to Aldridge's midrange game and eventually make a run at a championship? Soon enough Aldridge will be a trailblazer, regardless of whether he plays for Portland.
        I made a thread about this sometime in Decemberish.

        I think DD's midrange game has value, especially as defenses move to take away the paint and the three.
        "Bruno?
        Heh, if he is in the D-league still in a few years I will be surprised.
        He's terrible."

        -Superjudge, 7/23

        Hope you're wrong.

        Comment


        • stooley wrote: View Post
          From ESPN, http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/story...e-nba-playoffs



          I made a thread about this sometime in Decemberish.

          I think DD's midrange game has value, especially as defenses move to take away the paint and the three.
          I agree. His midrange game has value, if it is used in that way, as an outlet from a paint/three attack, used in situations where the defense has buckled and the midrange shot is open. Used in isolation, it can be detrimental instead.
          twitter.com/dhackett1565

          Comment


          • DanH wrote: View Post
            I agree. His midrange game has value, if it is used in that way, as an outlet from a paint/three attack, used in situations where the defense has buckled and the midrange shot is open. Used in isolation, it can be detrimental instead.
            I think LMA takes quite a few mid range isos though. It's more a situation of spreading the floor I think. The more places where your team can attack from, the less predictable you are and the less an opponent is able to plan for you.

            Mind you, the team needs to also have sufficient 3 point shooting and an inside presence, but I think the Raptors do. I was looking at some chart and the raptors are in the bottom third of the league in mid range jump shots taken

            The mid-range shot, like the rest of basketball, is a grey area.

            Portland ranks in the top 3 teams for mid-range jumpshots taken, and Aldridge alone has taken more than the Rockets have this year, but Portland's still winning the series right now.

            Now, I'm not saying DD is LMA, because he's not, just expanding on the discussion.
            Last edited by stooley; Thu Apr 24, 2014, 10:08 AM.
            "Bruno?
            Heh, if he is in the D-league still in a few years I will be surprised.
            He's terrible."

            -Superjudge, 7/23

            Hope you're wrong.

            Comment


            • DanH wrote: View Post
              I agree. His midrange game has value, if it is used in that way, as an outlet from a paint/three attack, used in situations where the defense has buckled and the midrange shot is open. Used in isolation, it can be detrimental instead.
              Agreed. An iso that leads to a forced 18 footer, with a hand in his face, with time left on the clock.....there's no value in that. Instead it's almost as detrimental as a turnover.

              I say "almost" because sometimes, that shot goes in.

              Comment


              • stooley wrote: View Post
                From ESPN, http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/story...e-nba-playoffs



                I made a thread about this sometime in Decemberish.

                I think DD's midrange game has value, especially as defenses move to take away the paint and the three.
                There's nothing wrong with a good midrange game.

                There's a lot wrong with an ISO-oriented, inefficient midrange game that forces too many contested shots.


                One thing I absolutely agree with is that these trends are too often considered in a vacuum, out of context (as many stats are, in general). Analytics might tell a story, but you have to ensure that any particular story suits the strengths of the personnel on your roster, within the context of how your team is defended. There is an opportunity cost associated with every shot; yes, shot A might be a 'good' shot analytically, but is it still a 'good' shot when it's being taken by a player who doesn't necessarily excel at that type of shot, against a defense trying to prevent that type of shot, when a potentially better shot could readily be available?

                As trends for offense proliferate around the league, so to does the defensive trend designed to stop that offensive trend. It really shouldn't be a surprise that early adopters find the most success, or that new ideas emerge once a trend becomes too trendy.

                Comment


                • A PF with a good midrange game also draws defenders away from the basket, opening up the most efficient scoring area. A SG taking midrange jumpers doesn't have the same effect.
                  If we knew half as much about coaching an NBA team as we think, we"d know twice as much as we do.

                  Comment


                  • Also, Aldridge is hardly trailblazing here. Bosh has been doing the same thing for MIA the past 3 years, and they've gotten 2 championships out of it. Yes, they also had LBJ, but Bosh's stretch 4/5 game is VERY key to their success.
                    twitter.com/dhackett1565

                    Comment


                    • CalgaryRapsFan wrote: View Post
                      There's nothing wrong with a good midrange game.

                      There's a lot wrong with an ISO-oriented, inefficient midrange game that forces too many contested shots.


                      One thing I absolutely agree with is that these trends are too often considered in a vacuum, out of context (as many stats are, in general). Analytics might tell a story, but you have to ensure that any particular story suits the strengths of the personnel on your roster, within the context of how your team is defended. There is an opportunity cost associated with every shot; yes, shot A might be a 'good' shot analytically, but is it still a 'good' shot when it's being taken by a player who doesn't necessarily excel at that type of shot, against a defense trying to prevent that type of shot, when a potentially better shot could readily be available?

                      As trends for offense proliferate around the league, so to does the defensive trend designed to stop that offensive trend. It really shouldn't be a surprise that early adopters find the most success, or that new ideas emerge once a trend becomes too trendy.
                      That's where the work that Kirk Goldsberry comes in. If you don't remember (there have been a few heavy analytical threads about some of his work this year), one of the things they were attempting to quantify is the value in making the right decision and getting the best shot. The example they used the most was from the Spurs game, when Parker came off a Duncan screen and had a wide open (game-tying) lay-up, but instead passed the ball to Kwahi Leonard for an open corner 3 and the win. The projected point total from Parker taking the lay-up was fairly high (say 0.78) but since Kwahi was open (unguarded by 5 feet), set for a catch and shoot (factoring in Kwahi is a great catch and shoot corner 3 guy) and it was for 3 points, the projected point total increased to 0.91. So while passing up an open lay-up for an open 3, with the game on the line may not be everyone's choice (risk/reward is a personal choice), Parker made the statistically smart play.

                      Here's the original article
                      http://grantland.com/features/expect...nba-analytics/

                      And the subsequent RR thread
                      http://www.raptorsrepublic.com/forum...Make-EPVA-Stat
                      Heir, Prince of Cambridge

                      If you see KeonClark in the wasteland, please share your food and water with him.

                      Comment


                      • Heck, Chris Paul was at his best when he was operating with David West as his stretch 4 pop guy.
                        twitter.com/dhackett1565

                        Comment


                        • 3inthekeon wrote: View Post
                          A PF with a good midrange game also draws defenders away from the basket, opening up the most efficient scoring area. A SG taking midrange jumpers doesn't have the same effect.
                          That's a good point.
                          "Bruno?
                          Heh, if he is in the D-league still in a few years I will be surprised.
                          He's terrible."

                          -Superjudge, 7/23

                          Hope you're wrong.

                          Comment


                          • DanH wrote: View Post
                            Also, Aldridge is hardly trailblazing here. Bosh has been doing the same thing for MIA the past 3 years, and they've gotten 2 championships out of it. Yes, they also had LBJ, but Bosh's stretch 4/5 game is VERY key to their success.
                            Dirk anyone?

                            Aldridge typically isn't even that efficient usually.. he's just been crazy hot, like...scorching inferno hot so far this series.

                            I like a good midrange game, but like said above, depends how you get those shots.

                            Comment


                            • BigCamB wrote: View Post
                              Dirk anyone?

                              Aldridge typically isn't even that efficient usually.. he's just been crazy hot, like...scorching inferno hot so far this series.

                              I like a good midrange game, but like said above, depends how you get those shots.
                              I think Aldridge was actually pretty crappy in game 1 from midrange.

                              Made like 30% of his shots or something, but he was pulling Howard out of the paint.
                              "Bruno?
                              Heh, if he is in the D-league still in a few years I will be surprised.
                              He's terrible."

                              -Superjudge, 7/23

                              Hope you're wrong.

                              Comment


                              • stooley wrote: View Post
                                I think Aldridge was actually pretty crappy in game 1 from midrange.

                                Made like 30% of his shots or something, but he was pulling Howard out of the paint.
                                Ah k, he was just so dominant that I didn't bother checking the stats. G1 he dominated the boards and inside, even hit a couple of threes..g2 was practically all mid rangers/long twos though. Was pretty crazy.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X