The Non-Jazz NBA Thread in the Jazz Section

[fishonjazz]

The only number you have cited to determine who is not a good shooter is 3FG%. Do you just lie for fun?

I would say 3 point percentage is a better indicator than the statistics/evidence that you have provided. I dont know if you have provided any, have you?

 

[KqWIN]

This is the biggest strawman post I have ever seen. I never once mentioned someone was a better shooter based on their 3PT%. I merely said they weren’t good shooters based on that and their FG% plus TS%. Also, of course a big man is going to have a better TS%. It is all based on context. Steph Curry the greatest shooter of all time has one of the best TS% of all-time.

So 3FG% can't be used to say who's better or worse, but it can determine who is good or bad. Thank you for clarifying. I totally changed my opinion on everything now.

Anyways.....No matter how good or bad you think Russell and Edwards are as shooters, they were able to produce significantly better offense last season with the same level of shooting talent surrounding them. The difference between Gobert+McDaniels and Beverley+Vanderbilt as shooters is miniscule. Fact is, the Timberwolves are playing complete garbage basketball. They are not being limited by their talent or ability. It's their mentality and quite frankly playing with Gobert that is dragging the team down this year. Their offensive numbers are complete *** with Gobert on the court, but just fine without him.

 

[KqWIN]

I would say 3 point percentage is a better indicator than the statistics/evidence that you have provided. I dont you have provided any, have you?

I've consistently said it over and over again. Context context context. The context in which Edwards and Russell shoot is obvious if you've watched them play 5 minutes of basketball. If you want to do it on paper you can look at the number of attempts and the number of shots that are unassisted. There are many things that create the context of a shot. Point is, you can't completely ignore all context when gauging the level of a shooter.

 

[fishonjazz]

I've consistently said it over and over again. Context context context. The context in which Edwards and Russell shoot is obvious if you've watched them play 5 minutes of basketball. If you want to do it on paper you can look at the number of attempts and the number of shots that are unassisted. There are many things that create the context of a shot. Point is, you can't completely ignore all context when gauging the level of a shooter.

i just asking for some evidence and/or statistics.
I mean you say they are taking bad shots and thats the missing context that explains their poor shooting stats. good shooters take bad shots and make them all the time. I see beasley and clarkson do it on the regular. If they can only make wide open perfect situation shots then maybe they are not good shooters?

 

[fishonjazz]

Instead of saying they are bad shooters because they play in a bad offense or because they get bad shots or whatever how about showing how/they are good shooters in your eyes?

 

[Hearsky]

Instead of saying they are bad shooters because they play in a bad offense or because they get bad shots or whatever how about showing how/they are good shooters in your eyes?

And, then, enjoy yourself some Aussie bites and string cheese and move the hell on.

 

[KqWIN]

i just asking for some evidence and/or statistics.
I mean you say they are taking bad shots and thats the missing context that explains their poor shooting stats. good shooters take bad shots and make them all the time. I see beasley and clarkson do it on the regular. If they can only make wide open perfect situation shots then maybe they are not good shooters?

I didn't even say they were good shooters. Reality is they are mediocre shooters with bad percentages and percentages are bad or not great because they take bad and difficult shots. The larger point was that I don't think the TWolves are doomed because of their level of shooting. 1) because they were great last year with the same level of shooting. 2) because their shooting talent isn't that bad to begin with.

Royce can only make wide open perfect shot situations. His percentages are higher than Dame. That's why is say you can't just look at percentages. Does that register at all? Like you can't just determine how good a shooter is by only looking at their percentage. You actually have to weigh their percentages with the context in which the shots were taken. The percentage of shots a guy makes is a result of his ability to make the shots and the difficulty of shots, so you have to consider both. I cannot explain it any more simply than that.

 

[KqWIN]

The ironic part about this silly conversation is that even by pure 3FG%, those two aren't even that terrible If you take the last 3 years (including this one), Russell is basically league average and Edwards just below it. Everyone knows that they are high volume 3 point shooters who take a lot of the dribble and generally play like idiots on offense. If you give any consideration to the context in which they shoot they are at worst slightly above average as shooters, but even without any context at all they are average or just barely below it.

 

[Elizah Huge]

I didn't even say they were good shooters. Reality is they are mediocre shooters with bad percentages and percentages are bad or not great because they take bad and difficult shots. The larger point was that I don't think the TWolves are doomed because of their level of shooting. 1) because they were great last year with the same level of shooting. 2) because their shooting talent isn't that bad to begin with.

I was waiting for you to say this.

Do you know which team made the most 3-pointers last year? Minnesota. They were 12th in 3PT% as well.

This year they are 15th in 3-pointers made and 25th in 3PT%.

They are shooting 7.1 less threes a game as well. Seems like a big difference to me.

Not only are they shooting WAY less threes they are shooting a much worse percentage (3.1% worse).

Beasley was 5th in the entire league last year in three-pointers made. Right now they don’t have anyone even close to the top-15 let alone top-5.

You should probably do a little research before you start posting nonsense.

 

[Jingled]

Lakers are now 2-10 and I continue to be completely dumbfounded that Rob Pelinka was given a contract extension in the offseason.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

View: https://twitter.com/DLocke09/status/1591302946763034625

Sure David… this ain’t about Don.

 

[Elizah Huge]

Lakers are now 2-10 and I continue to be completely dumbfounded that Rob Pelinka was given a contract extension in the offseason.

They are so ****ed. Worst part is they don’t even own their own pick this year. Their real only course of action is to trade Anthony Davis.

 

[Jingled]

They are so ****ed. Worst part is they don’t even own their own pick this year. Their real only course of action is to trade Anthony Davis.

They were so stupid not to do the Jazz deal. Bogey's averaging 20 ppg this season on 50% shooting and 43% from 3, Conley averaging 12 and 8 and shooting 41% from 3. Both guys would've been a great fit next to Lebron and AD.

 

[Elizah Huge]

They were so stupid not to do the Jazz deal. Bogey's averaging 20 ppg this season on 50% shooting and 43% from 3, Conley averaging 12 and 8 and shooting 41% from 3. Both guys would've been a great fit next to Lebron and AD.

Exactly. They didn’t want to give up future picks but now what? You’re wasting an entire season with nothing to show for it. Now their literal only move is to trade Davis and who knows if they will or not.

 

[Tremendous Upside]

Trouble brewing in Cleveland.

I don't think Garland and Don can co-exist in a productive way in the long run. They gave DG, an extremely ball dominant player, a max deal and all but anointed him the face of the franchise. Then they bring in another very small star guard who pretty much has the exact same player profile. Of course they both need to start and be heavily featured in the offense. I'm sorry but that's a recipe for disaster, and I'm not even talking about defense. You can talk about staggering minutes all you want, but in crunch time, you can't keep one of these guys on the bench.

Another example of the GM level wishful thinking that's so prevalent in the league today. First you prop up the ego of a young player because you want to sign him to an extension, then you expect that ego to disappear when another would-be alpha dog arrives. Not happening.

I expect the Cavs to start listening to trade offers on Garland before long if this season goes south (relative to expectations). Mitchell took DG's team from him and there's zero chance his camp is happy about it. Trouble is, it's a tough market right now. Not easy to get back equal value if you're trying to win like the Cavs are.

Making matters worse is the fact that the Cavs don't even know if Don will stay beyond his current deal. The Garland situation may affect his decision making, so all this has to be resolved in some way ASAP.

 

[KqWIN]

I was waiting for you to say this.

Do you know which team made the most 3-pointers last year? Minnesota. They were 12th in 3PT% as well.

This year they are 15th in 3-pointers made and 25th in 3PT%.

They are shooting 7.1 less threes a game as well. Seems like a big difference to me.

Not only are they shooting WAY less threes they are shooting a much worse percentage (3.1% worse).

Beasley was 5th in the entire league last year in three-pointers made. Right now they don’t have anyone even close to the top-15 let alone top-5.

You should probably do a little research before you start posting nonsense.

They were better on offense with Beasley on the court. I believe already mentioned this. I can’t really say the lack of Malik Beasley is the difference, when it’s clear he was not the player driving their good offense. The same lineups with the same players and similar shooting are performing worse.

The fact that the Timberwolves were the heaviest three pointing team in the league only strengthens my feeling on this. Sure, Beasley was a big part of it. But he wasn’t the key to their offense by any means and not the only player driving it. The same players who drove the performance last season are still there, just performing worse. There’s a difference between not having enough shooting and not making shots. You can always use more shooting, and Beasley did help them, but at some point you’ve just got to say these guys are playing like **** and they’ve got to play better.

Why are they performing so badly? I think the individual attitudes are worse, and they simply can’t play with Gobert. Gobert is dragging these numbers, and it’s not a shooting difference between Vanderbilt and Gobert that’s caused the change.

The same amount of shooting performed significantly better last year, but last year they were playing together. If these guys were playing good team basketball, they’d be performing. That’s the limiting factor.

Take a look at the Jazz last season. Also one of the best three point shooting teams in the league. In the playoffs, their frequency of attempts dropped significantly as well as the percentage. Would I say they needed more shooting? I wouldn’t. I would say there was more than enough shooting on the team…it was more of a symptom of poor performance and strategy. There were fundamental flaws with the Jazz team, but shooting was not one of them even it was a symptom.

 

[KqWIN]

They were so stupid not to do the Jazz deal. Bogey's averaging 20 ppg this season on 50% shooting and 43% from 3, Conley averaging 12 and 8 and shooting 41% from 3. Both guys would've been a great fit next to Lebron and AD.

I kinda disagree. Those guys are good players and playing well, but the Lakers are so bad it wouldn’t put them close to contention. If you’re giving up those two picks and giving up any chance at cap space the following summer, I think you’d need to have a chance at winning it all and I still think they are not close to contention with Bogey and Conley.

 

[HermanG]

The Mitchell/Garland back court as talented as it is looks to have limited potential. A young team are the Cavs but Im not seeing as potential super team going forward.

Both DM and Garland need long touches where they put the ball down to be at their best. When they are on the court together, they overlap more than complement each other in that regard.

I think they need to rotate them so that you always have 1 of the 2 on, reducing the time they play together and increasing your bench production. Pretty much what ATL is doing with Trae and Murray.

 

[FrenchJazzFa]

Look at GSW-Cavs. Cavs play well mot of the time but miss shoot at crutch time, when Steph put his shoot. Probably the difference between superstar player and good players. Garland is really struggling at shooting since he is back, Don playing pretty well.

 

[HermanG]

Look at GSW-Cavs. Cavs play well mot of the time but miss shoot at crutch time, when Steph put his shoot. Probably the difference between superstar player and good players. Garland is really struggling at shooting since he is back, Don playing pretty well.

Yeah something is definitely up with Garland. Reports seem to indicate its not related to Don, but they dont know what is going on inside Darius head. Last year he was the #1 guy and the headliner, not anymore.

That being said, I think that 20ft jumper Don took wasnt the worst decission (6 in shot clock) but Steph was the one contesting that and Don was nowhere near him 2 seconds later when he went for the fast break.

Don was spectating his own shot.. not going offensive for the possible board or defensive to cover Steph.