nate is much better than rondo

[NufffRespect]

The results of getting drunk before posting. 

[EJPLAYA]

Great stats Roy. I didn't know theirs were so poor inside. I would imagine though that their ability to draw contact and go to the line makes a bit of a difference to me though. It also would be nice to know what their "layup" percentage is vs. "inside shots". A tear drop from 6-7 feet might be considered inside and then those numbers wouldn't look too bad. Rajon is definitely a crafty scorer or he wouldn't be putting up the numbers that he does, however a very efficient shooter seems to be a big stretch! That seems to indicate that you felt he was efficient from the outside which obviously isn't the case.

Nice work with the examples though as it made me feel a bit better about his layups!

It's probably semantics regarding the word "efficient".  One stat that seems to encompass both of our arguments is "points per shot".  This takes into account all points scored (including FT points), and how many field goal attempts (but not FTAs) you needed to get them.  There, Rondo is very good -- 13th in the NBA among PGs, at 1.23 points per shot -- but he's not other-worldy.

(Another interesting stat I just saw:  Rondo ranks 2nd in the NBA on FG% on two-point shots, behind only Steve Nash.)

I agree with you that Rondo's FT shooting / confidence is an issue.  Often, he doesn't attack the opposing defense because of apparent concerns about being sent to the line. 

True shooting takes into account FTAs as well as three point shooting.

He falls to 25th (tied with Jameer Nelson) by that measure.

Great stat Fafnir.

[BballTim]

Great stats Roy. I didn't know theirs were so poor inside. I would imagine though that their ability to draw contact and go to the line makes a bit of a difference to me though. It also would be nice to know what their "layup" percentage is vs. "inside shots". A tear drop from 6-7 feet might be considered inside and then those numbers wouldn't look too bad. Rajon is definitely a crafty scorer or he wouldn't be putting up the numbers that he does, however a very efficient shooter seems to be a big stretch! That seems to indicate that you felt he was efficient from the outside which obviously isn't the case.

Nice work with the examples though as it made me feel a bit better about his layups!

It's probably semantics regarding the word "efficient".  One stat that seems to encompass both of our arguments is "points per shot".  This takes into account all points scored (including FT points), and how many field goal attempts (but not FTAs) you needed to get them.  There, Rondo is very good -- 13th in the NBA among PGs, at 1.23 points per shot -- but he's not other-worldy.

(Another interesting stat I just saw:  Rondo ranks 2nd in the NBA on FG% on two-point shots, behind only Steve Nash.)

I agree with you that Rondo's FT shooting / confidence is an issue.  Often, he doesn't attack the opposing defense because of apparent concerns about being sent to the line. 

True shooting takes into account FTAs as well as three point shooting.

He falls to 25th (tied with Jameer Nelson) by that measure.

  25th out of 68 players listed. Not the best, but still not bad.

  And the only point guard that takes it to the hoop much more than Rondo is Tyreke, who isn't necessarily a point guard. He may shy away from driving on occasion but not a lot considering he's a 4th option on offense.

[guava_wrench]

Great stats Roy. I didn't know theirs were so poor inside. I would imagine though that their ability to draw contact and go to the line makes a bit of a difference to me though. It also would be nice to know what their "layup" percentage is vs. "inside shots". A tear drop from 6-7 feet might be considered inside and then those numbers wouldn't look too bad. Rajon is definitely a crafty scorer or he wouldn't be putting up the numbers that he does, however a very efficient shooter seems to be a big stretch! That seems to indicate that you felt he was efficient from the outside which obviously isn't the case.

Nice work with the examples though as it made me feel a bit better about his layups!

It's probably semantics regarding the word "efficient".  One stat that seems to encompass both of our arguments is "points per shot".  This takes into account all points scored (including FT points), and how many field goal attempts (but not FTAs) you needed to get them.  There, Rondo is very good -- 13th in the NBA among PGs, at 1.23 points per shot -- but he's not other-worldy.

(Another interesting stat I just saw:  Rondo ranks 2nd in the NBA on FG% on two-point shots, behind only Steve Nash.)

I agree with you that Rondo's FT shooting / confidence is an issue.  Often, he doesn't attack the opposing defense because of apparent concerns about being sent to the line. 

True shooting takes into account FTAs as well as three point shooting.

He falls to 25th (tied with Jameer Nelson) by that measure.

One problem with stats that count free throws is that it is hard to capture whether it cost a possession. For example, does a player who misses the FT in an and-1 get a lower score than a player who also hits the shot but doesn't get fouled? The player should never be penalized for drawing a foul when scoring, even if they miss the FT.

On the other hand, the player who misses FTs that are not in an and-1 situation should be penalized since the used up a possession.

Essentially,

hitting a 2pt FG = 2 pts in a possession
hitting a 2pt FG & missing an and-1 = 2 pts in a possession
hitting a 2pt FG & hitting an and-1 = 3 pts in a possession
going 2-2 from FT = 2 pts in a possession
going 1-2 from FT = 1 pt in a possession
going 0-2 from FT = 0 pts in a possession

You can do the math for 3pt situations. This is situational, so it is hard to get from straight numbers. The main point is that 2 and-1 situations should not be though of as a possession, unless you want to count those 2 possessions as 3 possessions. The stat should measure scoring efficiency, not shooting ability.

[misha]

In what universe?

[BballTim]

Great stats Roy. I didn't know theirs were so poor inside. I would imagine though that their ability to draw contact and go to the line makes a bit of a difference to me though. It also would be nice to know what their "layup" percentage is vs. "inside shots". A tear drop from 6-7 feet might be considered inside and then those numbers wouldn't look too bad. Rajon is definitely a crafty scorer or he wouldn't be putting up the numbers that he does, however a very efficient shooter seems to be a big stretch! That seems to indicate that you felt he was efficient from the outside which obviously isn't the case.

Nice work with the examples though as it made me feel a bit better about his layups!

It's probably semantics regarding the word "efficient".  One stat that seems to encompass both of our arguments is "points per shot".  This takes into account all points scored (including FT points), and how many field goal attempts (but not FTAs) you needed to get them.  There, Rondo is very good -- 13th in the NBA among PGs, at 1.23 points per shot -- but he's not other-worldy.

(Another interesting stat I just saw:  Rondo ranks 2nd in the NBA on FG% on two-point shots, behind only Steve Nash.)

I agree with you that Rondo's FT shooting / confidence is an issue.  Often, he doesn't attack the opposing defense because of apparent concerns about being sent to the line. 

True shooting takes into account FTAs as well as three point shooting.

He falls to 25th (tied with Jameer Nelson) by that measure.

One problem with stats that count free throws is that it is hard to capture whether it cost a possession. For example, does a player who misses the FT in an and-1 get a lower score than a player who also hits the shot but doesn't get fouled? The player should never be penalized for drawing a foul when scoring, even if they miss the FT.

On the other hand, the player who misses FTs that are not in an and-1 situation should be penalized since the used up a possession.

Essentially,

hitting a 2pt FG = 2 pts in a possession
hitting a 2pt FG & missing an and-1 = 2 pts in a possession
hitting a 2pt FG & hitting an and-1 = 3 pts in a possession
going 2-2 from FT = 2 pts in a possession
going 1-2 from FT = 1 pt in a possession
going 0-2 from FT = 0 pts in a possession

You can do the math for 3pt situations. This is situational, so it is hard to get from straight numbers. The main point is that 2 and-1 situations should not be though of as a possession, unless you want to count those 2 possessions as 3 possessions. The stat should measure scoring efficiency, not shooting ability.

  If you really want to split hairs, though, missing the and-1 is probably better than not getting fouled (2 points in either case) because of the 25% or so chance you'd get an offensive rebound and gain an extra possession.

[guava_wrench]

Great stats Roy. I didn't know theirs were so poor inside. I would imagine though that their ability to draw contact and go to the line makes a bit of a difference to me though. It also would be nice to know what their "layup" percentage is vs. "inside shots". A tear drop from 6-7 feet might be considered inside and then those numbers wouldn't look too bad. Rajon is definitely a crafty scorer or he wouldn't be putting up the numbers that he does, however a very efficient shooter seems to be a big stretch! That seems to indicate that you felt he was efficient from the outside which obviously isn't the case.

Nice work with the examples though as it made me feel a bit better about his layups!

It's probably semantics regarding the word "efficient".  One stat that seems to encompass both of our arguments is "points per shot".  This takes into account all points scored (including FT points), and how many field goal attempts (but not FTAs) you needed to get them.  There, Rondo is very good -- 13th in the NBA among PGs, at 1.23 points per shot -- but he's not other-worldy.

(Another interesting stat I just saw:  Rondo ranks 2nd in the NBA on FG% on two-point shots, behind only Steve Nash.)

I agree with you that Rondo's FT shooting / confidence is an issue.  Often, he doesn't attack the opposing defense because of apparent concerns about being sent to the line. 

True shooting takes into account FTAs as well as three point shooting.

He falls to 25th (tied with Jameer Nelson) by that measure.

One problem with stats that count free throws is that it is hard to capture whether it cost a possession. For example, does a player who misses the FT in an and-1 get a lower score than a player who also hits the shot but doesn't get fouled? The player should never be penalized for drawing a foul when scoring, even if they miss the FT.

On the other hand, the player who misses FTs that are not in an and-1 situation should be penalized since the used up a possession.

Essentially,

hitting a 2pt FG = 2 pts in a possession
hitting a 2pt FG & missing an and-1 = 2 pts in a possession
hitting a 2pt FG & hitting an and-1 = 3 pts in a possession
going 2-2 from FT = 2 pts in a possession
going 1-2 from FT = 1 pt in a possession
going 0-2 from FT = 0 pts in a possession

You can do the math for 3pt situations. This is situational, so it is hard to get from straight numbers. The main point is that 2 and-1 situations should not be though of as a possession, unless you want to count those 2 possessions as 3 possessions. The stat should measure scoring efficiency, not shooting ability.

  If you really want to split hairs, though, missing the and-1 is probably better than not getting fouled (2 points in either case) because of the 25% or so chance you'd get an offensive rebound and gain an extra possession.

I agree. That adds to my argument, but it gets complicated from there as we start analyzing the chances for offensive boards or fast breaks based on the type of shots taken when no foul occurs.

I'm guessing the chances of offensive rebounds on FTs is considerably lower than .25 unless the shooter is so bad they regularly get long rebounds.

[dooyork]

This is one of the worst things that has happened to Celticsblog since I started following it right before the 2008 season.  I have been taking a little break in the offseason, only checking in once a week or so.  Man, I wish I hadn't checked Celticsblog today.  Why did this thread have to happen?  I don't know, but I guess everything happens for a reason.  There's no use dwelling on the past though, and wishing things that happened hadn't happened or vice versa, it is what it is, and we just need to deal with it and move on.  Hopefully the Celticsblog community can get through this incident and learn from it, and maybe come away stronger than before.

[BballTim]

Great stats Roy. I didn't know theirs were so poor inside. I would imagine though that their ability to draw contact and go to the line makes a bit of a difference to me though. It also would be nice to know what their "layup" percentage is vs. "inside shots". A tear drop from 6-7 feet might be considered inside and then those numbers wouldn't look too bad. Rajon is definitely a crafty scorer or he wouldn't be putting up the numbers that he does, however a very efficient shooter seems to be a big stretch! That seems to indicate that you felt he was efficient from the outside which obviously isn't the case.

Nice work with the examples though as it made me feel a bit better about his layups!

It's probably semantics regarding the word "efficient".  One stat that seems to encompass both of our arguments is "points per shot".  This takes into account all points scored (including FT points), and how many field goal attempts (but not FTAs) you needed to get them.  There, Rondo is very good -- 13th in the NBA among PGs, at 1.23 points per shot -- but he's not other-worldy.

(Another interesting stat I just saw:  Rondo ranks 2nd in the NBA on FG% on two-point shots, behind only Steve Nash.)

I agree with you that Rondo's FT shooting / confidence is an issue.  Often, he doesn't attack the opposing defense because of apparent concerns about being sent to the line. 

True shooting takes into account FTAs as well as three point shooting.

He falls to 25th (tied with Jameer Nelson) by that measure.

One problem with stats that count free throws is that it is hard to capture whether it cost a possession. For example, does a player who misses the FT in an and-1 get a lower score than a player who also hits the shot but doesn't get fouled? The player should never be penalized for drawing a foul when scoring, even if they miss the FT.

On the other hand, the player who misses FTs that are not in an and-1 situation should be penalized since the used up a possession.

Essentially,

hitting a 2pt FG = 2 pts in a possession
hitting a 2pt FG & missing an and-1 = 2 pts in a possession
hitting a 2pt FG & hitting an and-1 = 3 pts in a possession
going 2-2 from FT = 2 pts in a possession
going 1-2 from FT = 1 pt in a possession
going 0-2 from FT = 0 pts in a possession

You can do the math for 3pt situations. This is situational, so it is hard to get from straight numbers. The main point is that 2 and-1 situations should not be though of as a possession, unless you want to count those 2 possessions as 3 possessions. The stat should measure scoring efficiency, not shooting ability.

  If you really want to split hairs, though, missing the and-1 is probably better than not getting fouled (2 points in either case) because of the 25% or so chance you'd get an offensive rebound and gain an extra possession.

I agree. That adds to my argument, but it gets complicated from there as we start analyzing the chances for offensive boards or fast breaks based on the type of shots taken when no foul occurs.

I'm guessing the chances of offensive rebounds on FTs is considerably lower than .25 unless the shooter is so bad they regularly get long rebounds.

  Good guess. According to 82games the offensive rebound rate on free throws is 14% ( http://www.82games.com/comm13.htm ). I could have tried to find it, but I don't know that it really matters. I guess another step would be to compare how offenses do on defensive free throw rebounds compared to inbounding the ball after a made basket.

[oldmanspeaks]

The individual stats argument can be misleading in a team game as do many individual skills. This past week during our half-court games, we old guys (50, 61 and 65) were matched up against some local 20 something studs. They had an average of nearly 3 inch height advantage as well. 2 out of the 3 had a MAJOR speed, quickness and leap advantage. In any measurable respect the young guys should have dominated. The old guys won every game. The reason is that the old guys knew how to work together and got the appropriate shots for the talents of the shooter. Even a guy like me who can be timed with a sundial started the first game with two easy layups because the much quicker player guarding me failed to maintain proper position and my teammates recognized that instantly. Rondo simply can get the ball to the other players where they can do something with it and defends the same way(causes difficult entry passes). Nate has trouble doing the same even though he has some excellent individual skills.

[Fafnir]

Great stats Roy. I didn't know theirs were so poor inside. I would imagine though that their ability to draw contact and go to the line makes a bit of a difference to me though. It also would be nice to know what their "layup" percentage is vs. "inside shots". A tear drop from 6-7 feet might be considered inside and then those numbers wouldn't look too bad. Rajon is definitely a crafty scorer or he wouldn't be putting up the numbers that he does, however a very efficient shooter seems to be a big stretch! That seems to indicate that you felt he was efficient from the outside which obviously isn't the case.

Nice work with the examples though as it made me feel a bit better about his layups!

It's probably semantics regarding the word "efficient".  One stat that seems to encompass both of our arguments is "points per shot".  This takes into account all points scored (including FT points), and how many field goal attempts (but not FTAs) you needed to get them.  There, Rondo is very good -- 13th in the NBA among PGs, at 1.23 points per shot -- but he's not other-worldy.

(Another interesting stat I just saw:  Rondo ranks 2nd in the NBA on FG% on two-point shots, behind only Steve Nash.)

I agree with you that Rondo's FT shooting / confidence is an issue.  Often, he doesn't attack the opposing defense because of apparent concerns about being sent to the line. 

True shooting takes into account FTAs as well as three point shooting.

He falls to 25th (tied with Jameer Nelson) by that measure.

One problem with stats that count free throws is that it is hard to capture whether it cost a possession. For example, does a player who misses the FT in an and-1 get a lower score than a player who also hits the shot but doesn't get fouled? The player should never be penalized for drawing a foul when scoring, even if they miss the FT.

On the other hand, the player who misses FTs that are not in an and-1 situation should be penalized since the used up a possession.

Essentially,

hitting a 2pt FG = 2 pts in a possession
hitting a 2pt FG & missing an and-1 = 2 pts in a possession
hitting a 2pt FG & hitting an and-1 = 3 pts in a possession
going 2-2 from FT = 2 pts in a possession
going 1-2 from FT = 1 pt in a possession
going 0-2 from FT = 0 pts in a possession

You can do the math for 3pt situations. This is situational, so it is hard to get from straight numbers. The main point is that 2 and-1 situations should not be though of as a possession, unless you want to count those 2 possessions as 3 possessions. The stat should measure scoring efficiency, not shooting ability.

You are also forgeting technical free throws and clear path fouls.

You'll find that FTA's are weighted with I believe with .44 of a possession to account for that. Its not perfect as some players are better at drawing "and 1's" than others but I believe that .44 was selected based on league average.

I don't think the problem you highlight is statistically significant, though it might be. I'd be interested to see any studies that have been run on it.

[BballTim]

Great stats Roy. I didn't know theirs were so poor inside. I would imagine though that their ability to draw contact and go to the line makes a bit of a difference to me though. It also would be nice to know what their "layup" percentage is vs. "inside shots". A tear drop from 6-7 feet might be considered inside and then those numbers wouldn't look too bad. Rajon is definitely a crafty scorer or he wouldn't be putting up the numbers that he does, however a very efficient shooter seems to be a big stretch! That seems to indicate that you felt he was efficient from the outside which obviously isn't the case.

Nice work with the examples though as it made me feel a bit better about his layups!

It's probably semantics regarding the word "efficient".  One stat that seems to encompass both of our arguments is "points per shot".  This takes into account all points scored (including FT points), and how many field goal attempts (but not FTAs) you needed to get them.  There, Rondo is very good -- 13th in the NBA among PGs, at 1.23 points per shot -- but he's not other-worldy.

(Another interesting stat I just saw:  Rondo ranks 2nd in the NBA on FG% on two-point shots, behind only Steve Nash.)

I agree with you that Rondo's FT shooting / confidence is an issue.  Often, he doesn't attack the opposing defense because of apparent concerns about being sent to the line. 

True shooting takes into account FTAs as well as three point shooting.

He falls to 25th (tied with Jameer Nelson) by that measure.

One problem with stats that count free throws is that it is hard to capture whether it cost a possession. For example, does a player who misses the FT in an and-1 get a lower score than a player who also hits the shot but doesn't get fouled? The player should never be penalized for drawing a foul when scoring, even if they miss the FT.

On the other hand, the player who misses FTs that are not in an and-1 situation should be penalized since the used up a possession.

Essentially,

hitting a 2pt FG = 2 pts in a possession
hitting a 2pt FG & missing an and-1 = 2 pts in a possession
hitting a 2pt FG & hitting an and-1 = 3 pts in a possession
going 2-2 from FT = 2 pts in a possession
going 1-2 from FT = 1 pt in a possession
going 0-2 from FT = 0 pts in a possession

You can do the math for 3pt situations. This is situational, so it is hard to get from straight numbers. The main point is that 2 and-1 situations should not be though of as a possession, unless you want to count those 2 possessions as 3 possessions. The stat should measure scoring efficiency, not shooting ability.

You are also forgeting technical free throws and clear path fouls.

You'll find that FTA's are weighted with I believe with .44 of a possession to account for that. Its not perfect as some players are better at drawing "and 1's" than others but I believe that .44 was selected based on league average.

I don't think the problem you highlight is statistically significant, though it might be. I'd be interested to see any studies that have been run on it.

  Also fouls on players that aren't shooting. I think the number is more like .436. Hey, if you're going to make an estimate, it might as well be precise, right?

[Fafnir]

Also fouls on players that aren't shooting. I think the number is more like .436. Hey, if you're going to make an estimate, it might as well be precise, right?

They've done studies on decades of NBA play, the number used is basically between .4 and .44. It depends on your methodology what number you end up with.

Hollinger uses .44, Dean Oliver uses .4, other people will use .42, etc...

Either way its not an estimate that people are just making up.

[BballTim]

Also fouls on players that aren't shooting. I think the number is more like .436. Hey, if you're going to make an estimate, it might as well be precise, right?

They've done studies on decades of NBA play, the number used is basically between .4 and .44. It depends on your methodology what number you end up with.

Hollinger uses .44, Dean Oliver uses .4, other people will use .42, etc...

Either way its not an estimate that people are just making up.

  Sorry, I was being facetious. This must be what accounts for the differences in offensive efficiency numbers between Hollinger and basketballreference.

[screwedupmaniac]

You know it's summer at celticsblog when a topic like this somehow manages to accumulate 4 pages of posts.