Author Topic: Are there any Terry Rozier fans left?  (Read 90759 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Are there any Terry Rozier fans left?
« Reply #360 on: March 24, 2018, 09:18:26 PM »

Offline ThePaintedArea

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 763
  • Tommy Points: 111
Mostly fans don’t consider turnovers in evaluating NBA players. But coaches do!

Terry turns it over at 8.4%, which is outstanding. Last year he was already very good, at 9.7%.  The improvement comes despite his big jump in responsibility this season.

Re: Are there any Terry Rozier fans left?
« Reply #361 on: March 24, 2018, 09:27:43 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 48120
  • Tommy Points: 8794
  • President of Jaylen Brown Fan Club
Mostly fans don’t consider turnovers in evaluating NBA players. But coaches do!

Terry turns it over at 8.4%, which is outstanding. Last year he was already very good, at 9.7%.  The improvement comes despite his big jump in responsibility this season.
Another stat Rozier has really improved this year. His improvement arc in all his stats is remarkable. Don't know where it ends but if he has 2 more years of the same percentage improvement arc, Rozier becomes a just below All-Star level player. That's how much he has improved from year to year.

Now I don't expect that, that's some lofty expectations for a pkayer to improve that much each year for 4 years, but if he does...wow.

Re: Are there any Terry Rozier fans left?
« Reply #362 on: March 24, 2018, 10:22:02 PM »

Offline Beat LA

  • NCE
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8338
  • Tommy Points: 896
  • Mr. Emoji
I still think he has a low bball IQ. He can create his own shot and make difficult shots. He's not afraid of any shot. That's all good.

He's still sucks at getting people involved/running the offense. He's not too efficient and he's not nearly as good at defense as he should be given his athleticism.

He's a nice depth piece, but I don't think he can really play the 1.

Same, although saying that "he's not too efficient" is being extremely kind, imo, lol. Down to 39.8% on overall field goals, now ::).
When I look at efficiency I only look at TS% as it incorporates scoring from 2, 3, and the FT line. Rozier has raised his TS% each year going from 32.6% to 46.6% to 52.2%. League average is 55%.

Rozier has been steadily been getting more efficient as the year has progressed. Since the beginning of February he's been at about the league average of 55%.

So, as a whole this year he has been below average efficiently but recently been average. I don't think he is as inefficient as you are making it seem.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Rozier come in next year and be at 57+% TS% next year. He's developing at that rate.

Hey, I'm giving the guy credit - his scoring in double figures has been incredibly consistent. The problem, however, and as I said, is his efficiency. I know that it is improving, and perhaps I should be taking TS% into account, but at the same time, this is his third year in the league (granted, he didn't play much during his rookie year), and when you look at him and Smart, two guards taken in the first round in recent years, I don't know, I guess that I never thought that the bar would be so low that I'm now begging for one of them to shoot over 40% for a full season. *facepalm*

It's like I'm asking for frickin' sharks with laser beams attached to their heads and all I have to show for it, at this point, is mutated and ill-tempered Sea Bass! ;) ;D Ugh. 

Mostly fans don’t consider turnovers in evaluating NBA players. But coaches do!

Terry turns it over at 8.4%, which is outstanding. Last year he was already very good, at 9.7%.  The improvement comes despite his big jump in responsibility this season.

While I agree with the turnover percentage, my problem is that far too many of his shots might as well be turnovers owing to their high degree of difficulty, not to mention his low efficiency. Is that fair to say?

Mostly fans don’t consider turnovers in evaluating NBA players. But coaches do!

Terry turns it over at 8.4%, which is outstanding. Last year he was already very good, at 9.7%.  The improvement comes despite his big jump in responsibility this season.
Another stat Rozier has really improved this year. His improvement arc in all his stats is remarkable. Don't know where it ends but if he has 2 more years of the same percentage improvement arc, Rozier becomes a just below All-Star level player. That's how much he has improved from year to year.

Now I don't expect that, that's some lofty expectations for a pkayer to improve that much each year for 4 years, but if he does...wow.

Hey, listen, that would be great in terms of continued improvement. The question now, however, is should we sell high on the guy or keep him as our third guard moving forward, especially given that he wants to start. I mean, part of me thinks, even though I have no way to verify this as I haven't been watching, much, this year, that to get the best out of Rozier you probably need to keep Monroe, which I want to do, anyway #MooseIsLoose ;D, as that way Terry doesn't have to worry about running an offense, but I'm not sure. Can anyone corroborate this, as in has Rozier at least looked better since the arrival of Monroe?

Re: Are there any Terry Rozier fans left?
« Reply #363 on: March 24, 2018, 10:45:37 PM »

Offline footey

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15965
  • Tommy Points: 1833
I still think he has a low bball IQ. He can create his own shot and make difficult shots. He's not afraid of any shot. That's all good.

He's still sucks at getting people involved/running the offense. He's not too efficient and he's not nearly as good at defense as he should be given his athleticism.

He's a nice depth piece, but I don't think he can really play the 1.

Same, although saying that "he's not too efficient" is being extremely kind, imo, lol. Down to 39.8% on overall field goals, now ::).
When I look at efficiency I only look at TS% as it incorporates scoring from 2, 3, and the FT line. Rozier has raised his TS% each year going from 32.6% to 46.6% to 52.2%. League average is 55%.

Rozier has been steadily been getting more efficient as the year has progressed. Since the beginning of February he's been at about the league average of 55%.

So, as a whole this year he has been below average efficiently but recently been average. I don't think he is as inefficient as you are making it seem.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Rozier come in next year and be at 57+% TS% next year. He's developing at that rate.

Hey, I'm giving the guy credit - his scoring in double figures has been incredibly consistent. The problem, however, and as I said, is his efficiency. I know that it is improving, and perhaps I should be taking TS% into account, but at the same time, this is his third year in the league (granted, he didn't play much during his rookie year), and when you look at him and Smart, two guards taken in the first round in recent years, I don't know, I guess that I never thought that the bar would be so low that I'm now begging for one of them to shoot over 40% for a full season. *facepalm*

It's like I'm asking for frickin' sharks with laser beams attached to their heads and all I have to show for it, at this point, is mutated and ill-tempered Sea Bass! ;) ;D Ugh. 

Mostly fans don’t consider turnovers in evaluating NBA players. But coaches do!

Terry turns it over at 8.4%, which is outstanding. Last year he was already very good, at 9.7%.  The improvement comes despite his big jump in responsibility this season.

While I agree with the turnover percentage, my problem is that far too many of his shots might as well be turnovers owing to their high degree of difficulty, not to mention his low efficiency. Is that fair to say?

Mostly fans don’t consider turnovers in evaluating NBA players. But coaches do!

Terry turns it over at 8.4%, which is outstanding. Last year he was already very good, at 9.7%.  The improvement comes despite his big jump in responsibility this season.
Another stat Rozier has really improved this year. His improvement arc in all his stats is remarkable. Don't know where it ends but if he has 2 more years of the same percentage improvement arc, Rozier becomes a just below All-Star level player. That's how much he has improved from year to year.

Now I don't expect that, that's some lofty expectations for a pkayer to improve that much each year for 4 years, but if he does...wow.

Hey, listen, that would be great in terms of continued improvement. The question now, however, is should we sell high on the guy or keep him as our third guard moving forward, especially given that he wants to start. I mean, part of me thinks, even though I have no way to verify this as I haven't been watching, much, this year, that to get the best out of Rozier you probably need to keep Monroe, which I want to do, anyway #MooseIsLoose ;D, as that way Terry doesn't have to worry about running an offense, but I'm not sure. Can anyone corroborate this, as in has Rozier at least looked better since the arrival of Monroe?

Kyrie Irving had surgery on his knee today.

I doubt many folk here are interested in trading Terry Rozier right now, especially given the circumstances.

Re: Are there any Terry Rozier fans left?
« Reply #364 on: March 24, 2018, 10:46:14 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 48120
  • Tommy Points: 8794
  • President of Jaylen Brown Fan Club
I still think he has a low bball IQ. He can create his own shot and make difficult shots. He's not afraid of any shot. That's all good.

He's still sucks at getting people involved/running the offense. He's not too efficient and he's not nearly as good at defense as he should be given his athleticism.

He's a nice depth piece, but I don't think he can really play the 1.

Same, although saying that "he's not too efficient" is being extremely kind, imo, lol. Down to 39.8% on overall field goals, now ::).
When I look at efficiency I only look at TS% as it incorporates scoring from 2, 3, and the FT line. Rozier has raised his TS% each year going from 32.6% to 46.6% to 52.2%. League average is 55%.

Rozier has been steadily been getting more efficient as the year has progressed. Since the beginning of February he's been at about the league average of 55%.

So, as a whole this year he has been below average efficiently but recently been average. I don't think he is as inefficient as you are making it seem.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Rozier come in next year and be at 57+% TS% next year. He's developing at that rate.

Hey, I'm giving the guy credit - his scoring in double figures has been incredibly consistent. The problem, however, and as I said, is his efficiency. I know that it is improving, and perhaps I should be taking TS% into account, but at the same time, this is his third year in the league (granted, he didn't play much during his rookie year), and when you look at him and Smart, two guards taken in the first round in recent years, I don't know, I guess that I never thought that the bar would be so low that I'm now begging for one of them to shoot over 40% for a full season. *facepalm*

It's like I'm asking for frickin' sharks with laser beams attached to their heads and all I have to show for it, at this point, is mutated and ill-tempered Sea Bass! ;) ;D Ugh. 

Mostly fans don’t consider turnovers in evaluating NBA players. But coaches do!

Terry turns it over at 8.4%, which is outstanding. Last year he was already very good, at 9.7%.  The improvement comes despite his big jump in responsibility this season.

While I agree with the turnover percentage, my problem is that far too many of his shots might as well be turnovers owing to their high degree of difficulty, not to mention his low efficiency. Is that fair to say?

Mostly fans don’t consider turnovers in evaluating NBA players. But coaches do!

Terry turns it over at 8.4%, which is outstanding. Last year he was already very good, at 9.7%.  The improvement comes despite his big jump in responsibility this season.
Another stat Rozier has really improved this year. His improvement arc in all his stats is remarkable. Don't know where it ends but if he has 2 more years of the same percentage improvement arc, Rozier becomes a just below All-Star level player. That's how much he has improved from year to year.

Now I don't expect that, that's some lofty expectations for a pkayer to improve that much each year for 4 years, but if he does...wow.

Hey, listen, that would be great in terms of continued improvement. The question now, however, is should we sell high on the guy or keep him as our third guard moving forward, especially given that he wants to start. I mean, part of me thinks, even though I have no way to verify this as I haven't been watching, much, this year, that to get the best out of Rozier you probably need to keep Monroe, which I want to do, anyway #MooseIsLoose ;D, as that way Terry doesn't have to worry about running an offense, but I'm not sure. Can anyone corroborate this, as in has Rozier at least looked better since the arrival of Monroe?
Can't go by just FG%.

If a player in a game shoots 20 shots, 10 from 2 and 10 from 3 but goes 4 for ten from both his FG% is just 40%. But he scored 20 points so his eFG% is 50% showing much better efficiency because you score more with three pointers.

If in that same game the player goes 9 for 10 from the line, his true shooting percentage goes to 59.4% which is an excellent percentage. League average is 55%. So though that player shot 40% from the field, he scored 29 points on 20 shoots for a 1.45 points per fga. That's excellent efficiency.

Re: Are there any Terry Rozier fans left?
« Reply #365 on: March 24, 2018, 11:23:33 PM »

Offline Beat LA

  • NCE
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8338
  • Tommy Points: 896
  • Mr. Emoji
Kyrie Irving had surgery on his knee today.

I doubt many folk here are interested in trading Terry Rozier right now, especially given the circumstances.

Don't worry, I'm sure that Ainge has been working the phones for some time, now, lol ::).

Can't go by just FG%.

If a player in a game shoots 20 shots, 10 from 2 and 10 from 3 but goes 4 for ten from both his FG% is just 40%. But he scored 20 points so his eFG% is 50% showing much better efficiency because you score more with three pointers.

If in that same game the player goes 9 for 10 from the line, his true shooting percentage goes to 59.4% which is an excellent percentage. League average is 55%. So though that player shot 40% from the field, he scored 29 points on 20 shoots for a 1.45 points per fga. That's excellent efficiency.

Yeah, I've seen stuff about that, but I just think that it's strange how free throws, which, despite Abdel Nader's insistence to the contrary (just kidding. He almost looked as bad as me up there, though, lol. Ugh.), are uncontested, figure into the overall metric, so to speak, and I don't see any value in points per field goal attempt, but I'm willing to learn, haha. Like, what does that yield to any kind of analysis? It just seems rather weird, to me, to put it mildly.

Re: Are there any Terry Rozier fans left?
« Reply #366 on: March 24, 2018, 11:54:54 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 48120
  • Tommy Points: 8794
  • President of Jaylen Brown Fan Club
Kyrie Irving had surgery on his knee today.

I doubt many folk here are interested in trading Terry Rozier right now, especially given the circumstances.

Don't worry, I'm sure that Ainge has been working the phones for some time, now, lol ::).

Can't go by just FG%.

If a player in a game shoots 20 shots, 10 from 2 and 10 from 3 but goes 4 for ten from both his FG% is just 40%. But he scored 20 points so his eFG% is 50% showing much better efficiency because you score more with three pointers.

If in that same game the player goes 9 for 10 from the line, his true shooting percentage goes to 59.4% which is an excellent percentage. League average is 55%. So though that player shot 40% from the field, he scored 29 points on 20 shoots for a 1.45 points per fga. That's excellent efficiency.

Yeah, I've seen stuff about that, but I just think that it's strange how free throws, which, despite Abdel Nader's insistence to the contrary (just kidding. He almost looked as bad as me up there, though, lol. Ugh.), are uncontested, figure into the overall metric, so to speak, and I don't see any value in points per field goal attempt, but I'm willing to learn, haha. Like, what does that yield to any kind of analysis? It just seems rather weird, to me, to put it mildly.
Well go back to my example. Let's say two players go 4 for 10 from the field. One shoots 10 2 pointers and player two shoots all three pointers. Player one scores 8 points and so scores 0.8 points per field goal attempt or a TS% of 40%. The other player scores 12 points so scores 1.2 points per field goal attempt or a TS% of 60%. Obviously the player scoring 1.2 ppfga on a TS% of 60% is a more efficient scorer. Same amount of shots, more points.

Now lets say there is a third player who also went 4 from 10 from three but drove to the basket 5 times and was fouled on all five shots. Because he was fouled on the play the field goal attempts don't count. But he goes 10 for 10 from the line. So he scores 22 points on just 10 field goal attempts or 2.2 ppfga or a TS% of 76.4%, making him so much more efficient and effective a scorer as compared to player one and two.

All three players shoot 40% fg% on 10 shots, but one scores 8, another 12 and another 22. Are they all the same efficiently as scorers because they shot 40% from the field on 10 shots or is the amount of ppfga or TS% a better indicator of their scoring efficiency?

Re: Are there any Terry Rozier fans left?
« Reply #367 on: March 25, 2018, 12:36:33 AM »

Offline Atzar

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9122
  • Tommy Points: 1649
Yeah, I've seen stuff about that, but I just think that it's strange how free throws, which, despite Abdel Nader's insistence to the contrary (just kidding. He almost looked as bad as me up there, though, lol. Ugh.), are uncontested, figure into the overall metric, so to speak, and I don't see any value in points per field goal attempt, but I'm willing to learn, haha. Like, what does that yield to any kind of analysis? It just seems rather weird, to me, to put it mildly.

Think about it this way.  A team's score boils down to two things:  the number of points they score per possession, and the number of possessions they get.  It's that simple.  You score more points per possession, you score more points overall. 

Nick did a good job of explaining the math.  All of this is why three-point shooting has exploded in the league in the last several years:  despite the fact that players shoot threes at a lower raw
FG%, it yields more points. 


Re: Are there any Terry Rozier fans left?
« Reply #368 on: March 25, 2018, 12:39:18 AM »

Offline Beat LA

  • NCE
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8338
  • Tommy Points: 896
  • Mr. Emoji
Well go back to my example. Let's say two players go 4 for 10 from the field. One shoots 10 2 pointers and player two shoots all three pointers. Player one scores 8 points and so scores 0.8 points per field goal attempt or a TS% of 40%. The other player scores 12 points so scores 1.2 points per field goal attempt or a TS% of 60%. Obviously the player scoring 1.2 ppfga on a TS% of 60% is a more efficient scorer. Same amount of shots, more points.

Now lets say there is a third player who also went 4 from 10 from three but drove to the basket 5 times and was fouled on all five shots. Because he was fouled on the play the field goal attempts don't count. But he goes 10 for 10 from the line. So he scores 22 points on just 10 field goal attempts or 2.2 ppfga or a TS% of 76.4%, making him so much more efficient and effective a scorer as compared to player one and two.

All three players shoot 40% fg% on 10 shots, but one scores 8, another 12 and another 22. Are they all the same efficiently as scorers because they shot 40% from the field on 10 shots or is the amount of ppfga or TS% a better indicator of their scoring efficiency?

I suppose that that's one interpretation, yes, but from my perspective, what your hypothetical scenario illustrates, at least to me, anyway, is that Player 3 is much better than the other two dudes at getting to the foul line.

Re: Are there any Terry Rozier fans left?
« Reply #369 on: March 25, 2018, 12:42:55 AM »

Offline The Oracle

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1197
  • Tommy Points: 597
Kyrie Irving had surgery on his knee today.

I doubt many folk here are interested in trading Terry Rozier right now, especially given the circumstances.

Don't worry, I'm sure that Ainge has been working the phones for some time, now, lol ::).

Can't go by just FG%.

If a player in a game shoots 20 shots, 10 from 2 and 10 from 3 but goes 4 for ten from both his FG% is just 40%. But he scored 20 points so his eFG% is 50% showing much better efficiency because you score more with three pointers.

If in that same game the player goes 9 for 10 from the line, his true shooting percentage goes to 59.4% which is an excellent percentage. League average is 55%. So though that player shot 40% from the field, he scored 29 points on 20 shoots for a 1.45 points per fga. That's excellent efficiency.

Yeah, I've seen stuff about that, but I just think that it's strange how free throws, which, despite Abdel Nader's insistence to the contrary (just kidding. He almost looked as bad as me up there, though, lol. Ugh.), are uncontested, figure into the overall metric, so to speak, and I don't see any value in points per field goal attempt, but I'm willing to learn, haha. Like, what does that yield to any kind of analysis? It just seems rather weird, to me, to put it mildly.
Well go back to my example. Let's say two players go 4 for 10 from the field. One shoots 10 2 pointers and player two shoots all three pointers. Player one scores 8 points and so scores 0.8 points per field goal attempt or a TS% of 40%. The other player scores 12 points so scores 1.2 points per field goal attempt or a TS% of 60%. Obviously the player scoring 1.2 ppfga on a TS% of 60% is a more efficient scorer. Same amount of shots, more points.

Now lets say there is a third player who also went 4 from 10 from three but drove to the basket 5 times and was fouled on all five shots. Because he was fouled on the play the field goal attempts don't count. But he goes 10 for 10 from the line. So he scores 22 points on just 10 field goal attempts or 2.2 ppfga or a TS% of 76.4%, making him so much more efficient and effective a scorer as compared to player one and two.

All three players shoot 40% fg% on 10 shots, but one scores 8, another 12 and another 22. Are they all the same efficiently as scorers because they shot 40% from the field on 10 shots or is the amount of ppfga or TS% a better indicator of their scoring efficiency?
TS% (although not perfectly) does account for the possessions used when a player shoots free throws, points per FGA doesn't.  In your example players 1 and 2 are not given an equal amount of opportunities to score (10) as player 3 is (15).  Points per FGA is a very poor measure, TS% although it doesn't account perfectly for every possession used it is a far better representation of a players or teams efficiency.

Re: Are there any Terry Rozier fans left?
« Reply #370 on: March 25, 2018, 01:01:57 AM »

Offline nickagneta

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 48120
  • Tommy Points: 8794
  • President of Jaylen Brown Fan Club
Kyrie Irving had surgery on his knee today.

I doubt many folk here are interested in trading Terry Rozier right now, especially given the circumstances.

Don't worry, I'm sure that Ainge has been working the phones for some time, now, lol ::).

Can't go by just FG%.

If a player in a game shoots 20 shots, 10 from 2 and 10 from 3 but goes 4 for ten from both his FG% is just 40%. But he scored 20 points so his eFG% is 50% showing much better efficiency because you score more with three pointers.

If in that same game the player goes 9 for 10 from the line, his true shooting percentage goes to 59.4% which is an excellent percentage. League average is 55%. So though that player shot 40% from the field, he scored 29 points on 20 shoots for a 1.45 points per fga. That's excellent efficiency.

Yeah, I've seen stuff about that, but I just think that it's strange how free throws, which, despite Abdel Nader's insistence to the contrary (just kidding. He almost looked as bad as me up there, though, lol. Ugh.), are uncontested, figure into the overall metric, so to speak, and I don't see any value in points per field goal attempt, but I'm willing to learn, haha. Like, what does that yield to any kind of analysis? It just seems rather weird, to me, to put it mildly.
Well go back to my example. Let's say two players go 4 for 10 from the field. One shoots 10 2 pointers and player two shoots all three pointers. Player one scores 8 points and so scores 0.8 points per field goal attempt or a TS% of 40%. The other player scores 12 points so scores 1.2 points per field goal attempt or a TS% of 60%. Obviously the player scoring 1.2 ppfga on a TS% of 60% is a more efficient scorer. Same amount of shots, more points.

Now lets say there is a third player who also went 4 from 10 from three but drove to the basket 5 times and was fouled on all five shots. Because he was fouled on the play the field goal attempts don't count. But he goes 10 for 10 from the line. So he scores 22 points on just 10 field goal attempts or 2.2 ppfga or a TS% of 76.4%, making him so much more efficient and effective a scorer as compared to player one and two.

All three players shoot 40% fg% on 10 shots, but one scores 8, another 12 and another 22. Are they all the same efficiently as scorers because they shot 40% from the field on 10 shots or is the amount of ppfga or TS% a better indicator of their scoring efficiency?
TS% (although not perfectly) does account for the possessions used when a player shoots free throws, points per FGA doesn't.  In your example players 1 and 2 are not given an equal amount of opportunities to score (10) as player 3 is (15).  Points per FGA is a very poor measure, TS% although it doesn't account perfectly for every possession used it is a far better representation of a players or teams efficiency.
I like TS% better as well. But when used in combo, ppfga, eFg% and TS% tell a much more complex story and gives a better all around picture of a player's efficiency and how prolific they are. Knowing how each number fluctuates based on their raw stats and game is very important in evaluating a player.

For instance, Kyle Korver has a great TS%. He's very efficient as a scorer. But he's not really a "scorer" and has never averaged a ton of PPG because all he has is the shooting skill. His lack of a much higher ppfga shows this because he obviously isn't getting to the line. The greatest and most efficient prolific scorers have much higher ppfga because they get to the line a bunch and knock those down.

Different correlations can be seen in the numbers for bigs with high FG%, TS% but not necessarily huge upticks in ppfga because they don't hit threes and aren't great free throw shooters.

I prefer TS% for efficiency but I think a combination of different advanced scoring stats tell a bigger picture.

Re: Are there any Terry Rozier fans left?
« Reply #371 on: March 25, 2018, 01:15:41 AM »

Offline The Oracle

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1197
  • Tommy Points: 597
Mostly fans don’t consider turnovers in evaluating NBA players. But coaches do!

Terry turns it over at 8.4%, which is outstanding. Last year he was already very good, at 9.7%.  The improvement comes despite his big jump in responsibility this season.
That is not all that great of a thing though as what you want from a ball handler is to create a ton of great/easy scoring opportunities for their teammates.  Rozier doesn't make many mistakes but he doesn't take any chances either, he subsequently doesn't create (or even see) those easy opportunities for his teammates.  I would much prefer him if he turned the ball over more while creating those layups/dunks and wide open 3's for everyone on the floor with him.  There is a cost in the NBA to getting those easy buckets and it results in a few more turnovers unless your a magician that doesn't make many mistakes like Chris Paul.

Re: Are there any Terry Rozier fans left?
« Reply #372 on: March 25, 2018, 02:03:59 AM »

Offline Beat LA

  • NCE
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8338
  • Tommy Points: 896
  • Mr. Emoji
Yeah, I've seen stuff about that, but I just think that it's strange how free throws, which, despite Abdel Nader's insistence to the contrary (just kidding. He almost looked as bad as me up there, though, lol. Ugh.), are uncontested, figure into the overall metric, so to speak, and I don't see any value in points per field goal attempt, but I'm willing to learn, haha. Like, what does that yield to any kind of analysis? It just seems rather weird, to me, to put it mildly.

Think about it this way.  A team's score boils down to two things:  the number of points they score per possession, and the number of possessions they get.  It's that simple.  You score more points per possession, you score more points overall. 

Nick did a good job of explaining the math.  All of this is why three-point shooting has exploded in the league in the last several years:  despite the fact that players shoot threes at a lower raw
FG%, it yields more points.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but this seems like an attempt to take an almost No Child Left Behind approach to basketball, or as one size fits all kind of policy or whatever as if every player is the same, when, I'm sorry, but that has never been, is not, currently, and will never be possible, as no two players are identical. They can share similarities, sure, but this isn't a cookie cutter operation, or at least it shouldn't be, in my eyes, as it takes all of the creativity and individuality out of the game, imo, as if the sport has been reduced to operating, in a sense, from the standpoint of the lowest common denominator, so to speak.

In Nick's example, for instance, I don't think it has anything to do with efficiency. What I see is three different players with three different skillsets, but either way, each guy accounted for six missed shots, so while you can say that the guy who went 4/10 on 10 2 point field goal attempts is less efficient, I guess, I don't think that his performance is anywhere near as bad as the numbers indicate, as missed threes are more harmful, imo, owing to long shots = long rebounds = fast breaks, while such is not the case, or at least not to the severity, imo, of missed three point shots.

Plus, is player one a post player or master of the midrange game or whatever? I just don't believe that there's anywhere near enough information to make any kind of thorough analysis/final judgement, here. 

Finally, I also don't necessarily agree that player two is automatically a more efficient scorer than player one. All the example showed, imo, was that the former is a better three point shooter, at least for one night, anyway, than his counterpart, who, for all I know, might be like, say, Danny Green, who is not a scorer in any sense of the word but is an excellent three point shooter. Am I making any sense, here?

I don't know, I just think that each player is unique and should be treated as such, and that they should play to their strengths. If one SG is deadly from midrange, have him take that shot, while if a big guy is a terrific post player, he shouldn't be shooting threes. Just take the highest percentage shot for you. That's all that I'm saying.

Re: Are there any Terry Rozier fans left?
« Reply #373 on: March 25, 2018, 02:59:30 AM »

Offline nickagneta

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 48120
  • Tommy Points: 8794
  • President of Jaylen Brown Fan Club
Yeah, I've seen stuff about that, but I just think that it's strange how free throws, which, despite Abdel Nader's insistence to the contrary (just kidding. He almost looked as bad as me up there, though, lol. Ugh.), are uncontested, figure into the overall metric, so to speak, and I don't see any value in points per field goal attempt, but I'm willing to learn, haha. Like, what does that yield to any kind of analysis? It just seems rather weird, to me, to put it mildly.

Think about it this way.  A team's score boils down to two things:  the number of points they score per possession, and the number of possessions they get.  It's that simple.  You score more points per possession, you score more points overall. 

Nick did a good job of explaining the math.  All of this is why three-point shooting has exploded in the league in the last several years:  despite the fact that players shoot threes at a lower raw
FG%, it yields more points.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but this seems like an attempt to take an almost No Child Left Behind approach to basketball, or as one size fits all kind of policy or whatever as if every player is the same, when, I'm sorry, but that has never been, is not, currently, and will never be possible, as no two players are identical. They can share similarities, sure, but this isn't a cookie cutter operation, or at least it shouldn't be, in my eyes, as it takes all of the creativity and individuality out of the game, imo, as if the sport has been reduced to operating, in a sense, from the standpoint of the lowest common denominator, so to speak.

In Nick's example, for instance, I don't think it has anything to do with efficiency. What I see is three different players with three different skillsets, but either way, each guy accounted for six missed shots, so while you can say that the guy who went 4/10 on 10 2 point field goal attempts is less efficient, I guess, I don't think that his performance is anywhere near as bad as the numbers indicate, as missed threes are more harmful, imo, owing to long shots = long rebounds = fast breaks, while such is not the case, or at least not to the severity, imo, of missed three point shots.

Plus, is player one a post player or master of the midrange game or whatever? I just don't believe that there's anywhere near enough information to make any kind of thorough analysis/final judgement, here. 

Finally, I also don't necessarily agree that player two is automatically a more efficient scorer than player one. All the example showed, imo, was that the former is a better three point shooter, at least for one night, anyway, than his counterpart, who, for all I know, might be like, say, Danny Green, who is not a scorer in any sense of the word but is an excellent three point shooter. Am I making any sense, here?

I don't know, I just think that each player is unique and should be treated as such, and that they should play to their strengths. If one SG is deadly from midrange, have him take that shot, while if a big guy is a terrific post player, he shouldn't be shooting threes. Just take the highest percentage shot for you. That's all that I'm saying.
Sorry dude, but these mathematics are what has driven the game to be what it is now. Its why inside guys who shoot 53% are not valued or used nearly as much as three point shooters who shoot 45%. Just the threat of a guy who can shoot 40+% from three is valuable because if you put enough of them on the floor with a player like player three who can shoot efficiently AND get to the line, that opens space for player three types, the most efficient type scorers, to be most effective. Space the floor, and the Harden, Lebron and Durant type become that more effective. Its the math of the current NBA.

Unfortunately you can no longer look at the strengths of 12 individual players and make up game plans and plays that make each player their most effective. You can't have a playbook full of millions of plays that opens up every player to be their most efficient and useful for every type of matchup. You have to have a system and pkug the players into the system that maximizes the efficiency of the system. With of course that system being altered to make the superstars most efficient.

Thats the modern NBA. Thats the math behind it. Its not changing anytime soon.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2018, 03:17:02 AM by nickagneta »

Re: Are there any Terry Rozier fans left?
« Reply #374 on: March 25, 2018, 08:48:14 AM »

Offline More Banners

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3845
  • Tommy Points: 257
Mostly fans don’t consider turnovers in evaluating NBA players. But coaches do!

Terry turns it over at 8.4%, which is outstanding. Last year he was already very good, at 9.7%.  The improvement comes despite his big jump in responsibility this season.
That is not all that great of a thing though as what you want from a ball handler is to create a ton of great/easy scoring opportunities for their teammates.  Rozier doesn't make many mistakes but he doesn't take any chances either, he subsequently doesn't create (or even see) those easy opportunities for his teammates.  I would much prefer him if he turned the ball over more while creating those layups/dunks and wide open 3's for everyone on the floor with him.  There is a cost in the NBA to getting those easy buckets and it results in a few more turnovers unless your a magician that doesn't make many mistakes like Chris Paul.

I dunno. Our offense isn't really set up for one player to get all the assists like some systems/players tend to do. So I'm not to concerned about any individual's raw total. The team total and % of assisted buckets for the team are probably was the staff is looking at. Individuallly, they count hockey assists, which might be helpful too.

It's big for a young guard to play in control and take care of the ball to get important or key minutes. Rozier is doing quite well. Not sure we'll end up being able to keep him down the road. He looks really good for having relatively little experience.