Exactly what do you people want?

[LooseCannon]

I want to be able to say "I told you so" to everyone on this forum who disagrees with me.

[LarBrd33]

I want to be able to say "I told you so" to everyone on this forum who disagrees with me.

I want everyone on this forum who disagrees with me to say "I told you so" to me.

[Celtics4ever]

Better Defense from us.   Our offense is doing well.   Our bigs on D are lackluster some games but they did a decent job at times against Chicago.

Got any stats to back it up?

  Too young to recall the 90,s suns?  Which a certain GM played and was involved with.

[chambers]

I want Roy Hibbert and a top 5 small forward- MAYBE Kwahi Leonard depending how much he wants and if he can stay consistent.

I think Avery Bradley and his contract are perfect trade bait for when the time comes to acquire a solid center that can defend, run pick and roll and score in iso in the the paint.

Rondo
Smart (hoping he can stroke it around 40% from three eventually and become a top 5 SG in NBA).
Leonard *maybe, not 100% convinced about him yet).
Sullinger
Hibbert

Olynyk off the bench
James Young off the bench

[chambers]

Sounds like the OP has fallen into the classic trap of reacting as though other posters are just one guy with a bunch of different names.  There are lots of different opinions out here, a few posters saying something bad about Turner or whoever one day, then a few others saying something good the next, doesn't equal "the blog" being fickle or hypocritical.  Different people, folks, different people.

Except there is one poster with multiple names. His name is triboy. He also goes by the screen name 'playdream' and 'Rosco317'.

His grammar, spelling, lack of punctuation and style of writing are identical and each of those names responds to each others threads- always squeezing in an anti-rondo dialect.

I am not a Rondo lover. I think he's great, but I'm no BballTim or any of the other CBers who defend him to the death.

Look at the topics created recently by those screen names and the replies to each of the topics created by those names.

I hope the mods here can run IP checks and cancel multiple screen name accounts because it's super annoying- and this is coming from someone who can see the validity in some of the 'trade Rondo' arguments, or the arguments that he's not as good as some people on CB think he is.

Decide for yourself but I'll point out that by making the comment that I just quoted, you're doing the same thing you're accusing others of- falling into the trap of assuming it's not one die hard anti-Rondo poster who can't get traction on his ideas and has resorted to supporting himself with his own screen names to give himself more credit when suggesting pathetic ideas or questions.
A good recent example of one of those ideas that became a topic (that he sincerely believes is a valid question) would be 'should we start Smart over Rondo ?' among others.

[kozlodoev]

The long two has to be understood within context.

All the context you need is looking at eFG% and being able to do some math. Which will still take you that taking long twos is almost invariably less efficient. I'd guess the best long jumper shooter in the NBA will probably provide fewer points per shot than the best three point shooter or the the guy who's best in driving to the basket. Which makes the long jumper a pretty bad idea for go-to offense.

Of course, it's better to be a great long jumper shooter than not to be great in any offensive facet, but that's a different discussion altogether.

[Roy H.]

Except there is one poster with multiple names. His name is triboy. He also goes by the screen name 'playdream' and 'Rosco317'.

His grammar, spelling, lack of punctuation and style of writing are identical and each of those names responds to each others threads- always squeezing in an anti-rondo dialect.

Comments like this violate our rules about calling out other posters.  If you have a concern, please bring it up with the staff privately, and provide evidence of your claims.

[LooseCannon]

The long two has to be understood within context.

All the context you need is looking at eFG% and being able to do some math. Which will still take you that taking long twos is almost invariably less efficient. I'd guess the best long jumper shooter in the NBA will probably provide fewer points per shot than the best three point shooter or the the guy who's best in driving to the basket. Which makes the long jumper a pretty bad idea for go-to offense.

The math says Bradley's long two is more efficient than your average post up or than a guy like Evan Turner or Marcus Thornton isolating on the perimeter.  It's not the best option but it's not the worst option.

[indeedproceed]

The long two has to be understood within context.

All the context you need is looking at eFG% and being able to do some math. Which will still take you that taking long twos is almost invariably less efficient. I'd guess the best long jumper shooter in the NBA will probably provide fewer points per shot than the best three point shooter or the the guy who's best in driving to the basket. Which makes the long jumper a pretty bad idea for go-to offense.

The math says Bradley's long two is more efficient than your average post up or than a guy like Evan Turner or Marcus Thornton isolating on the perimeter.  It's not the best option but it's not the worst option.

I wonder about this claim in a more nuanced analysis.

Is it actually more efficient? I wonder. Seems like if you factor in the likeliness that a player is going to be fouled while attempting to score in the post (higher than anywhere else on the court I'd imagine) vs the likeliness that a player is going to be fouled while attempting a long 2 (Very low), and factor in the ensuring points produced from free throw attempts obtained by each shot, I'd imagine that attempting to score in the post still has a larger Points-Per-Possession

[Fafnir]

The long two has to be understood within context.

All the context you need is looking at eFG% and being able to do some math. Which will still take you that taking long twos is almost invariably less efficient. I'd guess the best long jumper shooter in the NBA will probably provide fewer points per shot than the best three point shooter or the the guy who's best in driving to the basket. Which makes the long jumper a pretty bad idea for go-to offense.

The math says Bradley's long two is more efficient than your average post up or than a guy like Evan Turner or Marcus Thornton isolating on the perimeter.  It's not the best option but it's not the worst option.

I wonder about this claim in a more nuanced analysis.

Is it actually more efficient? I wonder. Seems like if you factor in the likeliness that a player is going to be fouled while attempting to score in the post (higher than anywhere else on the court I'd imagine) vs the likeliness that a player is going to be fouled while attempting a long 2 (Very low), and factor in the ensuring points produced from free throw attempts obtained by each shot, I'd imagine that attempting to score in the post still has a larger Points-Per-Possession

Post ups have a lower points per possession league wide even accounting for free throws league wide because of the high probability of turnovers when entering the ball into the post/while there.

The allowance of zone defenses and no more hand checking changed everything for post play. It went from the most efficient play to one of the least efficient.

Also there is something to be said about the ability to take long twos when the defense successfully forces you into that shot. An open long 2 is still a good shot, you just shouldn't scheme to get it as you first option.

[D.o.s.]

If anyone wants some real games examples of the above phenomenon, refer to Houston/Portland in the playoffs, when LaMarcus Aldridge was allowed to hit elbow jumpers all day every day by the Rockets.

[LooseCannon]

The long two has to be understood within context.

All the context you need is looking at eFG% and being able to do some math. Which will still take you that taking long twos is almost invariably less efficient. I'd guess the best long jumper shooter in the NBA will probably provide fewer points per shot than the best three point shooter or the the guy who's best in driving to the basket. Which makes the long jumper a pretty bad idea for go-to offense.

The math says Bradley's long two is more efficient than your average post up or than a guy like Evan Turner or Marcus Thornton isolating on the perimeter.  It's not the best option but it's not the worst option.

I wonder about this claim in a more nuanced analysis.

Is it actually more efficient? I wonder. Seems like if you factor in the likeliness that a player is going to be fouled while attempting to score in the post (higher than anywhere else on the court I'd imagine) vs the likeliness that a player is going to be fouled while attempting a long 2 (Very low), and factor in the ensuring points produced from free throw attempts obtained by each shot, I'd imagine that attempting to score in the post still has a larger Points-Per-Possession

Are you looking for info like this:

[D.o.s.]

I assume Other is when a team shoots at the wrong basket?

[fairweatherfan]

My understanding has always been that long 2s aren't the shots you want to be taking, but are the shots you want to make to open up space for the shots you do want to take.  It's silly to try and eliminate them from your offense, but they should be used selectively to make room for cuts and 3 pt shooting.  Of course, if the defense refuses to bite and leaves them open all day the value there is limited.

[Waew]

the forums have always been like this since the beginning of time.