|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhB1vPM8ItA
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 15:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 12:19 |
|
|
milk milk lemonade posted:Ineffectual how Shooting a ball into a hoop from 24 feet out is in fact, kinda hard
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:Shooting a ball into a hoop from 24 feet out is in fact, kinda hard what
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 15:11
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:Shooting a ball into a hoop from 24 feet out is in fact, kinda hard Yeah that's why they give you a whole extra point for doing it. And they actually don't go in that much less often that long or mid range 2 point jumpers, which you notably do not get an extra point for. e: also I have no idea how you took "3 pointers are ineffectual" from that Jon Bois video MourningView fucked around with this message at 16:46 on Jun 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
The video didn't argue it was ineffectual, it argued that things wouldn't change that much if the line was removed, which is different.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2017 16:45
|
|
|
Thats also not true though
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 02:59
|
|
|
Apparently people not being able to understand that a 3 point line changes the game is 2017's version of goons not being able to envision how an axe can chop wood without the handle flying off
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 03:05
|
|
|
Cool Buff Man posted:Apparently people not being able to understand that a 3 point line changes the game is 2017's version of goons not being able to envision how an axe can chop wood without the handle flying off Good point How does an axe chop wood without its handle flying off?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 03:10
|
|
|
I must have missed the SA axe/axe handle story and even though I think it will make my head hurt I'm suddenly curious.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 03:14
|
|
|
Grittybeard posted:I must have missed the SA axe/axe handle story and even though I think it will make my head hurt I'm suddenly curious. it'll take all 8 days in a week to explain
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=1835161
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 03:56
|
|
|
MourningView posted:Yeah that's why they give you a whole extra point for doing it. And they actually don't go in that much less often that long or mid range 2 point jumpers, which you notably do not get an extra point for. Maybe ineffectual is the wrong word if you want to argue semantics, but I think that the conclusion is pretty apparent that whether there is a three point line or not wouldn't change the frequency of longer range shots, the frequency with which those shots are made, or which teams are better than the others. That says nothing of the fact that as long as there is a three point line, you're dumb to ignore the benefits of talking advantage of it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 04:11
|
|
|
Okay that's nowhere close to correct tho. The math on attempting 3 pointers makes it a higher value shot than a 2 pointer. Working to get open for that shot has changed the complexion of modern offenses. It would not even sort of be the same game without it - there would be no reason to space the court like they do now.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 05:47
|
|
|
Teemu Pokemon posted:Maybe ineffectual is the wrong word if you want to argue semantics, but I think that the conclusion is pretty apparent that whether there is a three point line or not wouldn't change the frequency of longer range shots, the frequency with which those shots are made, or which teams are better than the others. That says nothing of the fact that as long as there is a three point line, you're dumb to ignore the benefits of talking advantage of it. It sounds like you mean the exact opposite of ineffectual. Which is not semantics at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 06:28
|
|
|
I'm most amazed by how many of those people arent banned
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 07:00
|
|
|
milk milk lemonade posted:Okay that's nowhere close to correct tho. The math on attempting 3 pointers makes it a higher value shot than a 2 pointer. Working to get open for that shot has changed the complexion of modern offenses. It would not even sort of be the same game without it - there would be no reason to space the court like they do now. If it's arguably harder to defend the further from the basket (blocks by distance from the rim is used in the video, which doesn't tell the whole story, but isn't negligible), and shots from 2 feet, and 26 feet have roughly the same chance of going in, how would there being no three point line drastically alter the spacing on the floor? Teams are still going to shoot from outside when they know they can make it, they're not going to bunch themselves in all the much tighter to the rim and make it harder on themselves to move the ball. It doesn't seem like a stretch to think the game would've evolved similarly regardless as players got bigger and harder to beat in close defensively while also getting better at shooting from distance. Seems more that the 3 point line was a catalyst as opposed to the outright cause. e: I think the real interesting thing though, is that evolution would've taken likely a good amount of time longer had there never been a three point line, so all of that data about shot distances, wouldn't be nearly as complete. Teams would've gradually expanded the range of the floor rather than just jumping to a perimeter-or-in-close shot selection over the matter of a few years CharlestheHammer posted:It sounds like you mean the exact opposite of ineffectual. Which is not semantics at all. focusing on the definition of a misused word in place of the larger point is exactly what a semantics argument is so please join the convo or don't try to son me tia Teemu Pokemon fucked around with this message at 12:32 on Jun 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 12:21
|
|
|
Teemu Pokemon posted:and shots from 2 feet, and 26 feet have roughly the same chance of going in They don't
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 13:58
|
|
|
Jota posted:They don't Yup. They really don't. I couldn't find exactly 2 feet and 26 feet, but 0-3/0-5 and 3pt/24+ should be good enough for these purposes. e: what I like is that the close shots are worth more points per attempt, even when the extra point from the really long 3pt attempts are taken into account
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 14:27
|
|
|
Oh, hey, I found NBAsavant and it let me put in the exact distances! 2 ft: 50.49% 26 ft: 34.6% If you took the extra point into account, 26 footers would have an eFG% of 51.9%, just barely edging out the eFG% of the 2 ft shots. However, you are more likely to get fouled on the 2 ft shot and that probably happens often enough to make up that 1.5% difference.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 14:39
|
|
|
Maybe 2ft is too close, but according to Bois' stats, it appears that the further you get from the basket, until you get way out deep, seems to plateau at ~37-40% regardless of distance. The thing that could really alter the stats, is because of the 3pt line, half of shots he recorded are either from right under the basket or beyond the arc, so they have much more sample size than shots of each increment from, say, 5-22ft, and if there were no 3pt line, that shot distribution would likely skew closer to the basket and I'd bet that ~40% from ~10ft would likely go up a bit as those shots would get taken a little more frequently
Teemu Pokemon fucked around with this message at 18:04 on Jun 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 18:02
|
|
|
Also as teams have realized that mid-range looks aren't good, efficient attempts, they tend to happen as a shot of last resort or from players that don't necessarily have the range to make three-pointers. Offenses aren't really built around generating them any more, so I would guess they tend to be more heavily contested and come late in the shot clock
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
The Spurs have notably put together good offenses recently without making a ton of 3s by taking advantage of the fact that lots of modern defenses will concede midrange jumpers to get a lot of open midrange looks for guys like Aldridge who are really good at making them. Taking 3s is still generally a good idea but any open shot is typically a good one
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
Inefficient shots are the new market inefficiency.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
Bored, so I used NBA Savant some more. 3 ft: 42% 4 ft: 42% 5 ft: 41% 6 ft: 41% 7 ft: 42% 8 ft: 41% 9 ft: 40% 10 ft: 40% 11 ft: 41% 12 ft: 41% 13 ft: 40% 14 ft: 41% 15 ft: 43% (free throw line is this far back) 16 ft: 41% 17 ft: 41% 18 ft: 41% 19 ft: 39% 20 ft: 40% 21 ft: 37% 22 ft: 38% (corner 3 distance) Relatively consistent from three feet and beyond, except for the anomaly at 15 feet, which I think is due to free throw line shots that guys are used to.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
My guess for why the sudden drop off starting at three feet is because you only take a shot like that if there is someone in your way. You would get closer, otherwise, so these shots are defended more often and that little bit of extra distance makes it so you have to actually aim instead of just using your unreal NBA body to drop the ball in.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
Ramadu posted:I'm most amazed by how many of those people arent banned The weird thing is that when I was little I would picture myself holding a gun, and it would just spin in a circle in my hand the whole time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 01:14
|
|
|
Teemu Pokemon posted:If it's arguably harder to defend the further from the basket (blocks by distance from the rim is used in the video, which doesn't tell the whole story, but isn't negligible), and shots from 2 feet, and 26 feet have roughly the same chance of going in, how would there being no three point line drastically alter the spacing on the floor? Teams are still going to shoot from outside when they know they can make it, they're not going to bunch themselves in all the much tighter to the rim and make it harder on themselves to move the ball. It doesn't seem like a stretch to think the game would've evolved similarly regardless as players got bigger and harder to beat in close defensively while also getting better at shooting from distance. Seems more that the 3 point line was a catalyst as opposed to the outright cause. You larger point completely changes depending on what word you mean. I am joining the convo, be better at English so I can actually argue with you. Because at this point I don't actually think you know what your arguing. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 06:52
|
|
|
Teemu Pokemon posted:Maybe 2ft is too close, but according to Bois' stats, it appears that the further you get from the basket, until you get way out deep, seems to plateau at ~37-40% regardless of distance. The thing that could really alter the stats, is because of the 3pt line, half of shots he recorded are either from right under the basket or beyond the arc, so they have much more sample size than shots of each increment from, say, 5-22ft, and if there were no 3pt line, that shot distribution would likely skew closer to the basket and I'd bet that ~40% from ~10ft would likely go up a bit as those shots would get taken a little more frequently Modern offenses avoid mid range shots unless they are running out of clock, depressing their average. And players do not currently train those shots. Players were much better at that distance in the past, and they faded specifically because you have to hit them at 50% to match 33% from three, and guys were shooting more like 40ish. The problem with Bois's analysis is it relies by necessity on modern data.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 07:14
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:You larger point completely changes depending on what word you mean. be gooder at english so that I may fight you on the internet - an idiot
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 12:27
|
|
|
Teemu Pokemon posted:be gooder at english so that I may fight you on the internet So you don't know what your arguing? I figured.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
You're
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
Cool Buff Man posted:You're poo poo!!!!!
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
[INTERIOR: An undercover police patrol car. Partners of 10 years, Simmons and McManus, sit in silence while driving down an empty road at 2 am MCMANUS [abruptly, breaking the silence]: You know I worry about you. SIMMONS: Worrying never got anyone anywhere, Pete. MCMANUS: It's just....you seem a little reckless lately. Tensions are high out there right now after the riots, I don't want you to be caught in a bad sit- SIMMONS [interrupting]: How loving long have I been doing this, man? Don't give me that poo poo, I know what I'm doing. MCMANUS [timidly]: Well, ever since Jess... SIMMONS [angrily]: I TOLD YOU NEVER TO SAY HER loving NAME AGAIN! MCMANUS: Jesus, Roger.... I'm sorry, okay? SIMMONS stares straight ahead, not acknowledging the apology. He grabs the wheel suddenly with his free right hand, swings the car around abruptly, and makes a U-turn across the double yellow line painted on the road. A lone car traveling toward them slams on the brakes and jumps the sidewalk to avoid crashing MCNANUS [startled]: FOR gently caress'S SAKE, ROG. SIMMONS [laughing]: That never fuckin' gets old, I swear. MCMANUS: You're seriously loving damaged, Rog, you know that? I swear to Christ, if this job don't kill you, I loving will. SIMMONS: Whenever you want, buddy. I won't stop ya. [INTERIOR: The sedan on the curb, left behind as the officers speed away in their car] DRIVER [out his open window]: ARE YOU loving KIDDING ME? I'M GOING TO loving KILL YOU rear end in a top hat! THE DRIVER steers the sedan back into the street, and begins following the undercover car. He reaches for his cell phone and begins dialing. DRIVER: Yo, J, I'm trailing these two fucks just ran me off the road. I'm following them down Magnolia right now, about four or five miles from the warehouse. Get everyone in cars and ready to roll in 5, I want these fuckers dead. [INTERIOR: Undercover patrol car, MCMANUS and SIMMONS are mid-argument] SIMMONS: BECAUSE I DON'T loving WANT TO, PETE, OKAY? MCMANUS: I still think you should call her. I'm sure she's forgiven you by now. You know Kate and I saw her the other day and- SIMMONS: Wait, you saw her? What does that mean? You were in the supermarket and she was shopping? Or she was driving down the street and you saw her while you were walking down the street? What does "saw her" mean? MCMANUS: Come on, Rog. Kate and I have known her for 12 years, you don't think we still talk? That we don't see each other? SIMMONS: Christ, Pete. Are you making GBS threads me with this? You loving talk to Jess? Behind my loving back? MCMANUS: It's not behind your loving back Rog. She's our loving friend you rear end in a top hat. No wonder she- SIMMONS [interrupting]: Don't you finish that loving senten.. Suddenly, the car from earlier bumps them from behind, the car jerks forward. A gunshot is fired and blows out the back window of the undercover car. MCMANUS: WHAT THE gently caress?! SIMMONS: Hang on, Pete. SIMMONS speeds up, getting onto the bridge in front of them. Just as they are about to reach the halfway point of the bridge, two sets of headlights appear in the road ahead of them. SIMMONS slams the breaks and attempts a moving 180°, but the back left quarterpanel of the undercover car is rammed by the trailing sedan. The undercover car is sent careening over the guard rail of the bridge. The car falls 30 feet and crashes through the roof of an abandoned mental hospital. [INTERIOR: Undercover car, upside down] MCMANUS slowly regains consciousness. He is bleeding badly, he cannot move, his back and legs are broken MCMANUS [coughing]: ...R...Rog? MCMANUS rolls his eyes to his left, seeing his partner clearly dead with a broken neck. MCMANUS [softly]: Aw gently caress, Rog.. MCMANUS A knows his time is also short. He tries to scan around to see where the car has landed, to get a better view of exactly where he'll spend his last moments. He looks through the windshield, as he draws his final breath: MCMANUS: What...the..gently caress? Camera pans around to MCMANUS' point of view. The viewer can see a deceased naked man, suspended from the rafters by a belt, bathed in the blue light of a computer screen, the word INEFFECTUAL repeatedly scrawled on the wall in human excrement.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2017 22:16
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/KDonhoops/status/875060004688207872 dang
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
It does sort of feel like there was a big bubble in sports journalism that is popping.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
Niwrad posted:It does sort of feel like there was a big bubble in sports journalism that is popping. It's less a bubble popping and more the balloon slowly deflating out of journalism in general since the 90s
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
Niwrad posted:It does sort of feel like there was a big bubble in sports journalism that is popping. the yahoo-verizon merger closed yesterday and 2,100 are being laid off just in time for the vertical to jump to espn
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
Well ESPN laid off a bunch of people, same with SI if I'm correct. The Bleacher Report/SBNation model kind of killed a lot of jobs in this field.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 12:19 |
|
|
morestuff posted:It's less a bubble popping and more the balloon slowly deflating out of journalism in general since the 90s ESPN slowly killed spots journalism and Twitter pissed on its grave
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2017 22:46
|
|