Who would people choose between Randle and Sully? Both good rebounders, can get some inside. Sully obviously has the weight issues but Randle is a poor defender. Sully in his first year was stuck behind KG in the rotation so his PPG won't shine as much.
I think it's a fairly good comp between the two, although perhaps Randle has the higher ceiling as Sully will struggle with his conditioning for years to come
As much as we don't want sully taking long jumpers, you can't help but agree that it is a good fit for our team. Randle is a poor jump shooter and his game is much more iso-heavy, not a great fit. I'd take sully.
I thought we loved it when Sully takes long two point jump shots. We just don't want him taking threes.
I do. Sully's range is just inside the three point line.
I agree.
In fact that long two is one of the few shots I really like Sully taking. When he is open from that spot, he is almost automatic.
He can take that thing all day long and I have no issue with it.
Sully from 16 feet out to the 3 point line is shooting 41.1%. He is 74-180 this year from that distance. That by any standard is a very poor value shot equivalent to shooting 27.4% from the 3 point line. Smart is shooting 27.6% this year from 3 for comparison.
I don't care about shot 'value' personally. I care about whether the shot goes in, or whether it misses.
A made three point shot might be worth a little bit more than a made two point shot...but a made two point shot is worth a LOT more than a missed three point shot.
Sully right now is shooting 25% from three currently, which means if he takes a three there is a 75% chance he is going to miss it. Another way of looking at it - he's going to miss roughtly three 3PT shots before he finally makes one.
On two point shots, Sully shoots 41%, which is just under one in two. That means if Sully misses one midrange jumper, then there is a pretty good chance that he will make the next one.
If Sully takes 8 three point shots, statistics show he is most likely going to make two of them, which equates to 6 points.
If Sully takes 8 midrange jumpers, statistics indicate he is most likely going to make 3.2 of them. Obviously you can't make 0.2 of a shot, which means he will either make 3 or else he will make 4...that equates to either 6 points or 8 points.
Worst case, he gets the same number of points from the midrange jumpers as he does from the threes - so why take the three if the midrange jumper is much more likely to go in?
Best case he gets more points from the midrange jumpers than from the threes, in which case it's obviously much better off to take the midrange jumper.
THIS is just one example of why the NBA's obsession with "shot value" is flawed.
Another reason is clutch shooting. Lets say you are in the final minute of a tied game, and you have to call a play for Sully. Do you call a play for a three, or for a midrange jumper? Of course you call it for the midrange jumper. Why? Because if he takes the three, there is a 75% chance he's going to me...after which the opponent gets the ball, and has a chance to score, which then massively increases the probability of you losing the game.
Give him the midrange jumper and he has 40% chance (almost one in two) of making the shot. If he makes the shot, you go up by two, and now you are putting pressure on the opponent because they HAVE to score.
That's another reason why you take the midrange jumper over the three.
The whole "shot value" argument is a valid one when you have a guy who shoots decent (say, at least 34% or 35%) from three and not much better (say, 40%) from midrange. In those circumstances the probability of hitting the shot isn't that different, so you are much better off taking the three.
In this case, we have Sully - who is a very poor three point shooter, and a very good midrange shooter. Telling him to take to the three over the midrange jumper is not smart basketball.
It's like telling Evan Turner to stop shooting midrange jumpers and to shoot threes instead. You just wouldn't do it. He might make 5 midrange jumpers in the sapce of 12 minutes...but if you tell him stop shooting midrange jumpers and take threes instead, then he might only get off 3 half decent looks from three in that same 12 minute stretch - and he'd be lucky to make one of them.
Having poor three point shooters taking threes by choice is NOT smart basketball. It doesn't matter what generic numbers tell you - you always want your players doing what they are good at. You don't want to be forcing them to try and do what they aren't good at.
It's good that the NBA is recognising the value of the three these days, but as with ANY statistic, you always have to look at it in context.
