flossy:
No, the idea that this is a halfway reasonable defense of Iman Shumpert’s shitty scoring efficiency is what’s laughable.

hehe, it was just one sentence. again, reading comprehension:

“JUST AS ONE EXAMPLE”

“a missed shot that draws the defense and allows a teammate to get an easy follow is exactly the same result as a made shot, just as one example.”

EXACTLY IDENTICAL (except a few seconds more go off the game clock). not any missed shot, A MISSED SHOT THAT DRAWS THE DEFENSE AND ALLOWS A TEAMMATE TO GET AN EASY FOLLOW.

hilarious, wow…

flossy:
All you need to know about Jon Abbey’s crackpot theory/trolling is that he rips Landry Fields to shreds for being unable to shoot yet praises “Shumpie” for missing shots so his teammates can rebound the misses and put them back.

I ripped Fields for contributing absolutely nothing positive, whereas the Berri brigade praised him for his inaction.

the other part, it depends on the possession, people seem to read what they want to, but sometimes a missed shot can be overall beneficial to a team. whether or not your tiny cranium is capable of processing that is a different matter.

The Honorable Cock Jowles: Right, but abbey is claiming that the value of the shot is the same; essentially, Shumpert is “able” to take shots that are “easier” for his teammates to “clean up” on. So he should get credit for a wild lay-up that “draws defenders” that Chandler puts back… which is absolutely ridiculous.

no, I’m saying the value of the possession is the same, and that it’s sometimes impossible to disentangle individual contributions to the team result. another example is turnovers, which are always attributed to one player but in many cases shouldn’t be (or are often attributed to the wrong player).

Z-man:
Interesting concept, though. If a particular player shoots at a TS% of, say, .520 but his shots are statistically more likely to result in offensive rebounds and putbacks, is he more efficient than a guy that shoots a TS% of .540 but a higher % of his misses result in fast breaks and very efficient scoring attempts for the other team?

Absolutely he is. But there’s so much noise in trying to assess whether a player CAN do that in the first place, then trying to figure out if an individual player DOES do that, how can we even discuss this?

My attitude has been repeated ad nauseum, but I don’t care: because individual statistics remain relatively constant from year to year, I think that the safest course of action for roster-building is to pick the players with the best individual statistics with a degree of “team-building” to ensure that you don’t have four point-forwards on the floor at once. The idea that Shumpert is good because someone believes that his drives (which account for only a fraction of his possessions) make it easier (relative to other players’ drives) for his teammates to crash the boards? Absolute drivel.

I guarantee that if you put together a team of +.600 TS% shooters, even if they suffer from diminishing returns or “situational effects” like late-shot-clock chucks and “shot creation” inefficiency, you’ll have a team that leads the league in offensive efficiency. Stats are flawed, but jon abbey’s baseless assumptions would field a much shittier team.