The Non-Jazz NBA Thread in the Jazz Section

[Elizah Huge]

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

You are really weird.

And guess what… their FG% and TS% aren’t good either… shocker.

Their FG% and TS% aren’t good either lmao. By what metric are they good shooters? In theory if they took better quality shots?

I thought we could have a decent conversation but no you decided to argue with me that Edwards and Russell are good shooters.

 

[Bodhi]

I wish there was an option to never see endless and stupid arguments on this board.

 

[KqWIN]

You are really weird.

Oh, I didn't see you listed TS% which is even more irrelevant to determine who is a better shooter lmao. My bad. Still completely lied about saying you didn't use 3FG%, but who cares at this point this is the dumbest argument I have ever been apart of.

 

[Elizah Huge]

Oh, I didn't see you listed TS% which is even more irrelevant to determine who is a better shooter lmao. My bad.

TS% is even more irrelevant lmao? What is relevant then? The theory they could be good shooters?

 

[Elizah Huge]

Oh, I didn't see you listed TS% which is even more irrelevant to determine who is a better shooter lmao. My bad. Still completely lied about saying you didn't use 3FG%, but who cares at this point this is the dumbest argument I have ever been apart of.

Yes, you arguing with me that average to below average shooters are actually good shooters they just take bad shots and in theory could be good shooters IS one of the dumbest things I have been apart of on this board.

 

[KqWIN]

TS% is even more irrelevant lmao? My guy what is relevant then? The theory they could be good shooters?

Yes, it is irrelevant. Are we going to say Gobert is an all time great shooter because he has an all time great TS%? It's not that hard to determine how good a shooter is. It's efficiency and context. That's it. One without the other is not very meaningful.

I don't even care at this point. If you want to stand by this stupid logic, I can't change your opinion. Royce O'Neale is a better shooter than Dame and Gobert is an all time great shooter. That is your logic when you completely disregard context. Die on that hill if you want to.

 

[Elizah Huge]

Yes, it is irrelevant. Are we going to say Gobert is an all time great shooter because he has an all time great TS%? It's not that hard to determine how good a shooter is. It's efficiency and context. That's it. One without the other is not very meaningful.

I don't even care at this point. If you want to stand by this stupid logic, I can't change your opinion. Royce O'Neale is a better shooter than Dame and Gobert is an all time great shooter. That is your logic when you completely disregard context. Die on that hill if you want to.

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.

 

[Ron Mexico]

Did Mitchell really just lose a game and fake an injury so he doesn't have to face Gobert eating his soul every drive?

It's actually bad news for the NBA we don't get to see this matchup.

Also the first sentence is a joke before I get a bunch of responses telling me it's a real injury.

 

[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?