Part Marcus Smart. Part Buddy Hield

[IDreamCeltics]

What a show Marcus put on last night.

He was himself on defense and then on offense he was what Buddy Hield was suppose to be this year. I hope we get to see this side of Marcus more often.

Considering the Pelicans are literally the second worst team in the league in terms of defending the 3 pointer I'd guess we'll see this side of him every time we play New Orleans or Sacramento.

That's absolutely ridiculous rofl
His shots only fell because the pelicans are the second worst team in the league defending the three? And what kind of metric is defending the three?  If u said second worst perimeter d team that would mean more but it's still not a reason to take away a great offensive performance.  Not gonna lie you seem a little haterish

https://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/opponent-points-from-3-pointers

Here ya go.  Pelican's allow an average of 32.1 points per game by the 3.  They are ranked 29th out of 30 teams.  That's one reason they're terrible.

Posted this to refute the flawed logic in another thread as well:
Far more important than total points, the pelicans rank 11th in the league in opposing 3pt %. Opposing teams make 35.7% of 3 point attempts. Last night Marcus Smart made 83% including a 35 footer with the shot clock expiring.

There are plenty of legit ways to criticize Smart. This isn't one of them.

Right... you don't actually understand what's happening.  One stat is not "Far more important" than the other.  They're related to each other.

The Pelican's aren't ranked 11th in the NBA in 3% against because they're a "good" team at defending the perimeter, they're ranked 11th in 3% against because of the sheer volume of threes teams are taking against them.  How many threes are teams attempting against them? 

Opposing teams attempt 30.3 shots from 3-point land per game against the Pelicans.  This is good for #1 overall in the NBA in 3 pointers attempted against this season.

While they may be "holding" opponents to 35.7% 3 point shooting, the league average for 3% is 35.8 this year so what you're seeing is a regression to the mean as teams attempt the highest number of threes against the Pelicans of any team in the NBA.   

It's not a coincidence that Charlotte and Indiana are the #2 and #3 teams in volume of 3 pointers attempted against and both rank in the top ten in defensive 3%... It simply means as volume goes up the percentage tends to regress to the mean.

Why is this still a good idea against a team like the Pelicans?

Because 100 x 3 x .357 = 107.1.  Correspondingly teams would have to hit better than 53.55% of their two pointers to produce the same output on 100 shots.   

I agree that one stat is not far more important than the other in the grand scheme of things, but in this argument, one stat is far more important. I dont really care if New Orleans is a generally good 3 point defense. I care about Marcus Smarts performance against that defense.

Teams shoot right at their average against the pelicans on an above-average volume.

Teams shoot 113% of league average 3s and make them at 98% of the league average rate.

Marcus Smart shot 170% of his average 3s and made them at 229% of his league average rate.

This to me, says you cant attribute last nights sharpshooting to bad New Orleans defense. Instead, call it luck.
 
Now to address your statistical argument.

Regression to the mean means that if you take 35.3% type shots you will eventually wind up shooting 35.3%. You might start off shooting 50% but eventually you will come back to that 35.3%. You are arguing that the Pelicans are worse than league average at defending the 3. This means that teams should shoot better than league average when shooting threes. Simple as that. The mean that is regressed to has now moved.

The league average for 3s is 35.8%(?) the league average for ****tily defended 3s is greater than 35.8%. That is irrefutable.

If teams shoot 35.8% from deep against the Pelicans it means that on average the threes teams attempt against them are of average difficulty. That is what regression to the mean actually means.

Now if you claim your stats prove why Marcus Smart took so many 3s, then fine. That may be the case, but to say that playing New Orleans is the reason he made the 3s is wrong.

Again, if you want to conclude New Orleans is bad at defending threes because they know teams look to attack them from deep and even with this knowledge cannot muster more than average defense out there than thats fine with me. Thats a good conclusion to bring to the Pelicans fanbase. Im sure they are frustrated too. However, they still provide average resistance to 3 pointers so its not too too valuable in discussing Smarts makes.

I think it's really important that you bring this up because a lot of people think this way, and in a way it makes sense.  If a team holds opponents to a low 3% they must be good at defending the three right?

Well.. no.  You have to account for volume.  For example.  Indiana is holding opponents to 33.9% shooting from three for the season.  That ranks 3rd in the league just above the 4th ranked team the Boston Celtics, defending the 3 at 34.4%. 

If I were to take these stats in isolation I would say, "Man!  Indiana somehow has a better perimeter defense than the Celtics! I know this can't be true because I watch the games, but the numbers bear it out!"  Well do they?  Actually no they don't.

Because the Pacers are allowing opposing NBA teams to take 30 threes a game.  Whereas the Celtics are holding teams to 26.8 threes a game.

Indiana points allowed per game from three 30 x 3 x .339 = 30.51
Boston points allowed per game from three 26.8 x 3 x .344 = 27.65

Now to bring this back to our discussion of the Pelicans lets look at what they allow.

New Orleans points allowed per game (as of tonight) from three 30.3 x 3 x 35.7 =32.4 (league worst)

It's not a coincidence that the "league average" for shooting 3% is within 1/10th of a percentage point of what teams are shooting against the Pelicans and that they just happen to be the team that NBA teams are shooting the most threes against.

It's most likely that this number represents the average of what NBA players shoot against poorly contested three point shots and that's what NBA offenses are designed to create and players are trained to look for and shoot. 

So while the resulting percentage against the Pelicans is "league average" it's actually this knowledge in combination with the fact that the volume of these shots available against the Pelican's is so much higher than "league average" that tells us that their perimeter D is poo.

Another way to think of it is that NBA players and coaches are pretty smart and they've determined that of all the teams in the NBA the team they should shoot the most threes against is the Pelicans.     

Back to Marcus Smart.  He had a career night shooting 3's against the Pelican's Kudos to him!  (but he still did it against the worst 3 point defending team in the league ~~ )

You can talk all you want about the fact that teams want to shoot threes against the Pelicans, but the fact is that the average the pointer attempted against the Pelicans is more difficult(marginally) than the average 3 pointer attempted in the rest of the NBA.

Regression to the mean is exactly why your argument is wrong.

I bow to the superior logic of my fellow posters.  Teams are jacking up 3's against the Pelicans at a historic rate for no reason in particular.

[Ilikesports17]

What a show Marcus put on last night.

He was himself on defense and then on offense he was what Buddy Hield was suppose to be this year. I hope we get to see this side of Marcus more often.

Considering the Pelicans are literally the second worst team in the league in terms of defending the 3 pointer I'd guess we'll see this side of him every time we play New Orleans or Sacramento.

That's absolutely ridiculous rofl
His shots only fell because the pelicans are the second worst team in the league defending the three? And what kind of metric is defending the three?  If u said second worst perimeter d team that would mean more but it's still not a reason to take away a great offensive performance.  Not gonna lie you seem a little haterish

https://www.teamrankings.com/nba/stat/opponent-points-from-3-pointers

Here ya go.  Pelican's allow an average of 32.1 points per game by the 3.  They are ranked 29th out of 30 teams.  That's one reason they're terrible.

Posted this to refute the flawed logic in another thread as well:
Far more important than total points, the pelicans rank 11th in the league in opposing 3pt %. Opposing teams make 35.7% of 3 point attempts. Last night Marcus Smart made 83% including a 35 footer with the shot clock expiring.

There are plenty of legit ways to criticize Smart. This isn't one of them.

Right... you don't actually understand what's happening.  One stat is not "Far more important" than the other.  They're related to each other.

The Pelican's aren't ranked 11th in the NBA in 3% against because they're a "good" team at defending the perimeter, they're ranked 11th in 3% against because of the sheer volume of threes teams are taking against them.  How many threes are teams attempting against them? 

Opposing teams attempt 30.3 shots from 3-point land per game against the Pelicans.  This is good for #1 overall in the NBA in 3 pointers attempted against this season.

While they may be "holding" opponents to 35.7% 3 point shooting, the league average for 3% is 35.8 this year so what you're seeing is a regression to the mean as teams attempt the highest number of threes against the Pelicans of any team in the NBA.   

It's not a coincidence that Charlotte and Indiana are the #2 and #3 teams in volume of 3 pointers attempted against and both rank in the top ten in defensive 3%... It simply means as volume goes up the percentage tends to regress to the mean.

Why is this still a good idea against a team like the Pelicans?

Because 100 x 3 x .357 = 107.1.  Correspondingly teams would have to hit better than 53.55% of their two pointers to produce the same output on 100 shots.   

I agree that one stat is not far more important than the other in the grand scheme of things, but in this argument, one stat is far more important. I dont really care if New Orleans is a generally good 3 point defense. I care about Marcus Smarts performance against that defense.

Teams shoot right at their average against the pelicans on an above-average volume.

Teams shoot 113% of league average 3s and make them at 98% of the league average rate.

Marcus Smart shot 170% of his average 3s and made them at 229% of his league average rate.

This to me, says you cant attribute last nights sharpshooting to bad New Orleans defense. Instead, call it luck.
 
Now to address your statistical argument.

Regression to the mean means that if you take 35.3% type shots you will eventually wind up shooting 35.3%. You might start off shooting 50% but eventually you will come back to that 35.3%. You are arguing that the Pelicans are worse than league average at defending the 3. This means that teams should shoot better than league average when shooting threes. Simple as that. The mean that is regressed to has now moved.

The league average for 3s is 35.8%(?) the league average for ****tily defended 3s is greater than 35.8%. That is irrefutable.

If teams shoot 35.8% from deep against the Pelicans it means that on average the threes teams attempt against them are of average difficulty. That is what regression to the mean actually means.

Now if you claim your stats prove why Marcus Smart took so many 3s, then fine. That may be the case, but to say that playing New Orleans is the reason he made the 3s is wrong.

Again, if you want to conclude New Orleans is bad at defending threes because they know teams look to attack them from deep and even with this knowledge cannot muster more than average defense out there than thats fine with me. Thats a good conclusion to bring to the Pelicans fanbase. Im sure they are frustrated too. However, they still provide average resistance to 3 pointers so its not too too valuable in discussing Smarts makes.

I think it's really important that you bring this up because a lot of people think this way, and in a way it makes sense.  If a team holds opponents to a low 3% they must be good at defending the three right?

Well.. no.  You have to account for volume.  For example.  Indiana is holding opponents to 33.9% shooting from three for the season.  That ranks 3rd in the league just above the 4th ranked team the Boston Celtics, defending the 3 at 34.4%. 

If I were to take these stats in isolation I would say, "Man!  Indiana somehow has a better perimeter defense than the Celtics! I know this can't be true because I watch the games, but the numbers bear it out!"  Well do they?  Actually no they don't.

Because the Pacers are allowing opposing NBA teams to take 30 threes a game.  Whereas the Celtics are holding teams to 26.8 threes a game.

Indiana points allowed per game from three 30 x 3 x .339 = 30.51
Boston points allowed per game from three 26.8 x 3 x .344 = 27.65

Now to bring this back to our discussion of the Pelicans lets look at what they allow.

New Orleans points allowed per game (as of tonight) from three 30.3 x 3 x 35.7 =32.4 (league worst)

It's not a coincidence that the "league average" for shooting 3% is within 1/10th of a percentage point of what teams are shooting against the Pelicans and that they just happen to be the team that NBA teams are shooting the most threes against.

It's most likely that this number represents the average of what NBA players shoot against poorly contested three point shots and that's what NBA offenses are designed to create and players are trained to look for and shoot. 

So while the resulting percentage against the Pelicans is "league average" it's actually this knowledge in combination with the fact that the volume of these shots available against the Pelican's is so much higher than "league average" that tells us that their perimeter D is poo.

Another way to think of it is that NBA players and coaches are pretty smart and they've determined that of all the teams in the NBA the team they should shoot the most threes against is the Pelicans.     

Back to Marcus Smart.  He had a career night shooting 3's against the Pelican's Kudos to him!  (but he still did it against the worst 3 point defending team in the league ~~ )

You can talk all you want about the fact that teams want to shoot threes against the Pelicans, but the fact is that the average the pointer attempted against the Pelicans is more difficult(marginally) than the average 3 pointer attempted in the rest of the NBA.

Regression to the mean is exactly why your argument is wrong.

I bow to the superior logic of my fellow posters.  Teams are jacking up 3's against the Pelicans at a historic rate for no reason in particular.

Perhaps they take a ton of 3s because Anthony Davis is patrolling the paint and they are just average defending the 3? Who knows. Point is that if New Orleans was allowing easier attempts than other teams the three pointers would be going in at a higher rate.