Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [APBR_analysis] Re: Brent Barry shooting pct (Neil Johnston and Bill Russell)

Expand Messages
  • Michael K. Tamada
    Thanks, I ve got Tall Tales but had forgotten that tidbit of information. Russell s first year in the NBA coincided with perhaps the worst season that Foust
    Message 1 of 16 , Mar 14 3:06 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Thanks, I've got Tall Tales but had forgotten that tidbit of information.
      Russell's first year in the NBA coincided with perhaps the worst season
      that Foust had had in his career, up to that point.

      But that may've been due to an injury, Foust bounced right back with one
      of his better seasons, and another All-star appearance the next season.
      He declined after that, but he was 30 by then so it may've been age rather
      than centers such as Russell who caused the decline.


      --MKT


      On Sun, 10 Mar 2002, harlanzo wrote:

      > Russell did dominate those slow hook shooters like Johnston and
      > Foust. However, the thing with JOhnston is that, according to Tall
      > Tales, Russell blocked a Johnston hook shot and Johnston blew out his
      > knee on the play and was never able to play again. It was looked
      > upon as a metaphorical passing of the torch from the old slow hook
      > shot centers to the more athletic generation. (though Foust lasted
      > into the 60s and was not immediately sent into retirement).
      >
      >
      > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "mikel_ind" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
      > > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Michael K. Tamada" <tamada@o...> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > > year pct. player
      > > > > 1956 .539 Neil Johnston, Phl
      > > > > 1957 .530 Neil Johnston, Phl
      > > >
      > > > 1957 was when Bill Russell entered the league, if the rumors
      > about
      > > him
      > > > driving Neil Johnston out of the league were true, it seems that
      > > Russell
      > > > didn't have that big an immediate impact.
      > > >
      > > Johnston's career had a pretty typical trajectory for the era:
      > > peaking in his 2nd season (1953), 5 great years, 2 years of
      > decline,
      > > failed to finish his 8th year (1959).
      > >
      > > Maybe getting beat up by Russell only one night in 7 didn't ruin
      > his
      > > game; but perhaps other centers learned Russell's anti-Johnston
      > move.
      > >
      > > > > 1961 .542 Oscar Robertson, Cin
      > > > > 1962 .542 Walt Bellamy, Chi
      > > >
      > > > I don't have in front of me the scoring stats for these players,
      > > but I
      > > > think they were among the league leaders in scoring per game in
      > > those
      > > > years, which makes their high PT% especially impressive. Unlike,
      > > e.g.
      > > > Wilt's .666 in 1973 when he was no longer much of a scorer.
      > >
      > >
      > > Oscar was revolutionary. It is difficult to find a guard who
      > > shot .500 after the shot clock, until Oscar came along.
      > > >
      > > > > 1967 .616 Wilt Chamberlain, Phl
      > > >
      > > > I think Wilt was still around 24 or 27 points per game in 1967?
      > So
      > > he was
      > > > scoring a lot of points with high efficiency.
      > >
      > > Wilt shot .683 from the field, and .441 from the line, in 1967.
      > And
      > > 24.1 ppg.
      > >
      > >
      > > > > 1974 .586 Jimmy Jones, Uta(A)
      > > > > .... .584 Bob McAdoo, Buf
      > > >
      > > > I think this was around when McAdoo was the NBA's leading scorer,
      > > quite
      > > > an impressive feat to be the top scorer AND the top shooting
      > > efficiency
      > > > guy. Even Michael Jordan or for that matter George Gervin or
      > Adrian
      > > > Dantley never led the league in shooting efficiency.
      > > >
      > >
      > > > > 1980 .657 Cedric Maxwell, Bos
      > > >
      > > > We need to think of a way to correct for the existence of the 3-
      > > point
      > > > field goal, which permits players to achieve higher scoring
      > > efficiency.
      > >
      > > The shot clock lowered efficiencies by reducing the FT rates. The
      > 3-
      > > to-make-2 was eliminated and further reduced efficiency. The 3-
      > point
      > > shot clearly helps some players (is the raison d'etre for many),
      > > while an occasional Barkley is statistically battered by his
      > attempts.
      > >
      > > >
      > > > > 1993 .627 Kenny Smith, Hou
      > > >
      > > > [...]
      > > >
      > > > > 2002 .659 (so far) Brent Barry, Sea
      > > >
      > > > A bit surprisingly, the top shooting efficiency players from the
      > > beginning
      > > > of the NBA 3-pter until 1992 were all inside players (Maxwell,
      > > Gilmore,
      > > > Barkley, etc.) Not until 1993 do we see a player who is clearly
      > > getting
      > > > direct benefits from 3-pters to raise his shooting efficiency.
      > > >
      > > > But since 1993, it's been all 3-pt guys, not inside guys, who've
      > > led the
      > > > NBA.
      > >
      > > > --MKT
      > >
      > > Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the 3-point line was
      > shorter
      > > from '94 to '97. When the NBA went back to the longer arc, the era
      > > of great big men had subsided.
      > >
      > > Of course, some attention has been brought to the idea of "scoring
      > > efficiency" in the last 10 years, and it is no disgrace to
      > shoot .420
      > > from the floor, if it creates more points than trying to score
      > inside.
      > >
      > > Mike Goodman
      > >
      > >
      > > >
      >
      >
      >
      > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > APBR_analysis-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      >
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >
    • HoopStudies
      ... penalty for ... have that ... go ... The expected return on the 1-and-1 is, assuming 68% FT%, 1.14. That really isn t much of a penalty for fouling, if
      Message 2 of 16 , Mar 24 4:29 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Michael K. Tamada" <tamada@o...> wrote:
        > Conversely, one of the dumbest rules still existing in organized
        > basketball is the 1-and-1 that the NCAA persists in using. It gives
        > college teams yet another excuse to foul and foul, because the
        penalty for
        > doing so is so ridiculously light. Thank goodness the NCAA does
        have that
        > double-bonus, finally. But they should get rid of the 1-and-1 and
        go
        > right into double-bonus. (Mens NCAA was also the last major league

        The expected return on the 1-and-1 is, assuming 68% FT%, 1.14. That
        really isn't much of a penalty for fouling, if the value of a
        possession is about 1-1.1 in college.

        What kind of expected return should there be for excessive fouls in a
        quarter/half? Should it increase with number of fouls?

        What should the expected return be for flagrants or intentionals?

        DeanO
      • Michael K. Tamada
        ... [...] ... Pretty much the sky is the limit here, whatever the rules are, teams will adjust. The least extreme change would be something like: in the last
        Message 3 of 16 , Mar 26 2:36 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          On Mon, 25 Mar 2002, HoopStudies wrote:

          > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Michael K. Tamada" <tamada@o...> wrote:
          > > Conversely, one of the dumbest rules still existing in organized
          > > basketball is the 1-and-1 that the NCAA persists in using. It gives
          > > college teams yet another excuse to foul and foul, because the
          > penalty for
          > > doing so is so ridiculously light. Thank goodness the NCAA does

          [...]

          > The expected return on the 1-and-1 is, assuming 68% FT%, 1.14. That
          > really isn't much of a penalty for fouling, if the value of a
          > possession is about 1-1.1 in college.
          >
          > What kind of expected return should there be for excessive fouls in a
          > quarter/half? Should it increase with number of fouls?
          >
          > What should the expected return be for flagrants or intentionals?


          Pretty much the sky is the limit here, whatever the rules are, teams will
          adjust. The least extreme change would be something like: in the last
          two minutes of a game, defensive fouls are automatically 3-to-make-2.
          Regardless of the team foul situation and whether the person with the ball
          is shooting or not. Or the foullee gets just one free throw -- but his
          team gets to keep possession afterward. That'd reduce the deliberate
          foulling.

          More extreme would be make all defensive fouls, even the first ones in a
          quarter, worth foul shots, 2 or 3-to-make-2. To prevent the "strategic
          foulling" wherein a defender grabs a guy before he can even get a shot
          off.

          Changes like this would reduce foulling because of the heavy penalty
          involved. They would also make defense harder to play -- but although
          we're a bit ahead of the dark days of 1999 when only one team managed,
          barely, to average 100 points a game, I think most observers would agree
          that changes in the game that made offense easier and defense harder would
          be a positive change now.


          --MKT
        • mikel_ind
          ... One argument for retaining the 1+1 is that at developmental levels (college?), free-throw shooting is a skill that is necessary to learn. Performing under
          Message 4 of 16 , Mar 26 5:06 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Michael K. Tamada" <tamada@o...> wrote:
            > > > .... one of the dumbest rules still existing in organized
            > > > basketball is the 1-and-1 that the NCAA persists in using.

            One argument for retaining the 1+1 is that at developmental levels
            (college?), free-throw shooting is a skill that is necessary to learn.

            Performing under pressure is also something to learn.

            > [...]
            > ... something like: in the last
            > two minutes of a game, defensive fouls are automatically 3-to-make-
            2.

            Personal preference is for fewer FT.

            > Or the foullee gets just one free throw -- but his
            > team gets to keep possession afterward. That'd reduce the
            deliberate
            > foulling.

            This makes lots of sense. When you grab Shaq, he shoots 1 FT, Lakers
            retain ball. Perfect solution, in fact.

            >
            > More extreme would be make all defensive fouls, even the first ones
            in a
            > quarter, worth foul shots, 2 or 3-to-make-2. To prevent
            the "strategic
            > foulling" wherein a defender grabs a guy before he can even get a
            shot
            > off.
            >
            > Changes like this would reduce foulling because of the heavy penalty
            > involved. They would also make defense harder to play -- but
            although
            > we're a bit ahead of the dark days of 1999 when only one team
            managed,
            > barely, to average 100 points a game, I think most observers would
            agree
            > that changes in the game that made offense easier and defense
            harder would
            > be a positive change now.
            >
            >
            > --MKT

            I'm not trying to dote on Shaq here, but if he is shooting 40% at the
            line, then 2 shots is worth .8 points, and 3 is worth 1.2 points.
            Meanwhile, 1 shot and the ball is some .4 + 1 = 1.4 points.

            Fewer FT is a better game, IMHO, and one-plus-possession seems to
            nicely suit all purposes. If it's a hard (i.e., dangerous) foul, it
            should be 2-plus-possession.

            Most Shaqophiles I know like to claim that he doesn't beat up
            defenders any worse than they beat him up. Creating such a rule
            change might reduce the constant incidental-contact that makes it
            hard for the ref to call it either way.

            Then Shaq might not be such a wrecking crew, and some careers might
            even last longer.

            Mike Goodman
          • HoopStudies
            ... learn. ... make- ... I just tend to think that 1+ the ball is a greater penalty, especially since the biggest penalty at the end of a game is time running
            Message 5 of 16 , Mar 26 8:02 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "mikel_ind" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
              > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Michael K. Tamada" <tamada@o...> wrote:
              > > > > .... one of the dumbest rules still existing in organized
              > > > > basketball is the 1-and-1 that the NCAA persists in using.
              >
              > One argument for retaining the 1+1 is that at developmental levels
              > (college?), free-throw shooting is a skill that is necessary to
              learn.
              >
              > Performing under pressure is also something to learn.
              >
              > > [...]
              > > ... something like: in the last
              > > two minutes of a game, defensive fouls are automatically 3-to-
              make-
              > 2.
              >
              > Personal preference is for fewer FT.
              >

              I just tend to think that 1+ the ball is a greater penalty,
              especially since the biggest penalty at the end of a game is time
              running off the clock.

              > I'm not trying to dote on Shaq here, but if he is shooting 40% at
              the
              > line, then 2 shots is worth .8 points, and 3 is worth 1.2 points.
              > Meanwhile, 1 shot and the ball is some .4 + 1 = 1.4 points.
              >

              Plus the opportunity to see Shaq on the block again. Although Shaq
              pretty consistently shoots about 53%.

              > Fewer FT is a better game, IMHO, and one-plus-possession seems to
              > nicely suit all purposes. If it's a hard (i.e., dangerous) foul,
              it
              > should be 2-plus-possession.
              >
              > Most Shaqophiles I know like to claim that he doesn't beat up
              > defenders any worse than they beat him up. Creating such a rule
              > change might reduce the constant incidental-contact that makes it
              > hard for the ref to call it either way.

              I don't know how you change that incidental contact unless you call
              the game incredibly tight, basically no contact at all, which means
              no backing down an opponent, fewer blocked shots, lots more FTs (at
              least in the short run). Shaq's size is a problem. I don't see any
              way to get around the fact that the rules weren't meant for someone
              as big and strong as he is.

              DeanO
            • Michael K. Tamada
              On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, mikel_ind wrote: [...] ... No question that fewer FT is a better game. The interesting question though is what happens if we penalize
              Message 6 of 16 , Mar 26 8:47 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, mikel_ind wrote:

                [...]

                > Fewer FT is a better game, IMHO, and one-plus-possession seems to

                No question that fewer FT is a better game. The interesting question
                though is what happens if we penalize fouls by giving oodles of free
                throws to the foulee? On the one hand, we might expect lots of free
                throws to result, but I think that the need to avoid giving the opponent
                lots of cheap easy FTs would cause teams to foul much less. So much less
                that the number of FTs would actually fall.

                Conversely, 1-and-1 rules invite teams to simply hack and hack
                "deliberately but not intentionally" (one of the biggest jokes and an
                example of the inherent unworkability of the rules: every one of the 10
                or 20 thousand people in the building knows that those fouls were commited
                deliberately, and simply to send the guy to the line, but only rarely do
                they get called as "intentional" fouls). Result: an endless march to the
                free throw line. So awarding fewer FTs per violation actually leads to
                more FTs being attempted in a game.


                But, the 1 FT + possession idea could achieve both ends.



                I don't want to say "never", but rules in sports should be such that
                players almost never find it in their interest to deliberately break the
                rules. There's a few acceptable rare exceptions such as the intentional
                delay of game penalty in a football game.

                Or alternatively, give up the sham and incorporate the act into the rules,
                but don't try to pretend the rules are outlawing something they aren't.
                Instead of having players run up and mug the guy with the ball
                "deliberately but not intentionally", just permit the team to say "I
                hereby foul Player Z" and player Z gets to shoot his FTs and a player on
                the defensive team gets charged with a foul.

                An example of giving up the sham: for years and years, the NBA had a
                little fiction called the 20 second injury time-out. Originally used
                for that purpose, but it evolved into a way for teams to call timeout
                without using one of their precious real timeouts. I remember being in
                Boston Garden watching Cedric Maxwell about to inbound the ball. The
                Celtics wanted to call a 20 second injury timeout, so Cedric, at one
                moment healthy and holding the ball up, suddenly grimaced and clutched his
                leg and called for an injury timeout. And guffawed all the way to the
                huddle, while we spectators said "I hope your leg feels better now
                Cedric".

                It was pretty amusing, but it underlined the silliness of the NBA rule
                saying these timeouts were for looking after an injured player. A few
                years later the NBA finally said okay we'll just call them 20-second
                timeouts, and you can call one for any reason.

                Much better. None of this "injury" timeout charade.

                Ditto for deliberate fouls. Either incorporate them into the rules, or
                better yet, get teams to stop doing in by increasing the penalty. But
                don't try to claim there are rules against "intentional fouls" when we see
                teams commit them every night.


                --MKT
              • thedawgsareout
                ... Well, I ve been contemplating how exactly to discourage physical play without increasing free throws lately myself, and hadn t gotten much of anywhere.
                Message 7 of 16 , Mar 27 1:06 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Michael K. Tamada" <tamada@o...> wrote:

                  Well, I've been contemplating how exactly to discourage physical
                  play without increasing free throws lately myself, and hadn't gotten
                  much of anywhere. About the only thing I came up with that achieved
                  both results was reducing the number of fouls necessary to foul out,
                  but I have problems with that on a number of levels, mainly because
                  it would probably increase the frequency of so-called 'superstar
                  calls'.

                  Mike's idea for one FT + possession really does a great job of
                  achieving both goals without any other significant detriment, in my
                  opinion. Let's get David Stern on the horn. . . .

                  > An example of giving up the sham: . . .
                  > It was pretty amusing, but it underlined the silliness of the NBA
                  > rule saying these timeouts were for looking after an injured
                  > player. A few years later the NBA finally said okay we'll just
                  > call them 20-second timeouts, and you can call one for any reason.
                  >
                  > Much better. None of this "injury" timeout charade.

                  I heard the NBA was looking into ending another one of these shams,
                  the 'injured list', and just going ahead and officially calling it
                  an inactive list/squad or something of that nature. I'm conflicted;
                  I'll really miss the cases of patella tendinitis that plagued poor
                  Steve Scheffler so.
                • Medea's Child
                  ... I m sure Steve won t. Then again, maybe he will. At least then, he could explain to friends and family that he s injured (as opposed to being
                  Message 8 of 16 , Mar 27 1:36 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- thedawgsareout <kpelton08@...> wrote:
                    > I'll really miss the cases of patella tendinitis
                    > that plagued poor
                    > Steve Scheffler so.
                    >
                    I'm sure Steve won't.







                    Then again, maybe he will. At least then, he could
                    explain to friends and family that he's "injured" (as
                    opposed to being "irrelevant").

                    Medea's Child


                    __________________________________________________
                    Do You Yahoo!?
                    Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards´┐Ż
                    http://movies.yahoo.com/
                  • HoopStudies
                    ... question ... opponent ... much less ... All this talk about changing the penalty to avoid fouls reminds me of Bill James similar crusade in baseball. He
                    Message 9 of 16 , Mar 27 9:09 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > > Fewer FT is a better game, IMHO, and one-plus-possession seems to
                      >
                      > No question that fewer FT is a better game. The interesting
                      question
                      > though is what happens if we penalize fouls by giving oodles of free
                      > throws to the foulee? On the one hand, we might expect lots of free
                      > throws to result, but I think that the need to avoid giving the
                      opponent
                      > lots of cheap easy FTs would cause teams to foul much less. So
                      much less
                      > that the number of FTs would actually fall.
                      >

                      All this talk about changing the penalty to avoid fouls reminds me of
                      Bill James' similar crusade in baseball. He said that baseball's
                      intentional walk was one of the stupidest concepts around. He
                      advocated allowing a hitter to pass on first base at his option
                      (whether the walk looked intentional or not). If he got another 4
                      balls, then he could go to 2nd base, etc. It seemed like an
                      interesting tweak to me. I think a lot of hitters would still take
                      the walk most times, but not all the time (end of close games).
                      Baseball is a lot harder to change, I think, than basketball.

                      Returning to basketball, it sounds like we agree on 1 FT + possession
                      as a good deterrent to excessive fouling. To clarify, when would we
                      employ it? Just on obviously intentional fouls, even those in the
                      backcourt or not in the last two minutes? 2FT + possessions for
                      flagrant.

                      DeanO
                    • Michael K. Tamada
                      On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, HoopStudies wrote: [...] ... My vote, but I imagine I m an extremist, is as often as possible. Doesn t even have to be a penalty
                      Message 10 of 16 , Mar 28 2:32 AM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, HoopStudies wrote:

                        [...]

                        > Returning to basketball, it sounds like we agree on 1 FT + possession
                        > as a good deterrent to excessive fouling. To clarify, when would we
                        > employ it? Just on obviously intentional fouls, even those in the
                        > backcourt or not in the last two minutes? 2FT + possessions for
                        > flagrant.

                        My vote, but I imagine I'm an extremist, is as often as possible. Doesn't
                        even have to be a penalty situation. Defenders will eventually realize
                        that if they can't handle the offensive player, it does them no good to do
                        what they currently do (foul) because the guy will get the ball back
                        anyway. Eventually they will have to simply play the best non-foulling
                        defense they can and hope the shooter misses. Or get defensive help,
                        aided by the legalized zone rules the NBA now has.

                        Purists will protest that this takes weapons away from the defenders and
                        makes the game a wimpy non-contact sport. Well it's supposed to be a
                        non-contact sport. The game would become less physical, but that's not a
                        bad thing. Our notion of what constitutes wimpy basketball can and does
                        change -- dunks used to be rare because they were viewed as inflammatory
                        dissing of the opponents, which would lead to the dunker getting whacked
                        but good on a subsequent play. Nowadays players dunk with abandon. We
                        still have the "don't give away an uncontested layin" mentality, but that
                        can and should go the way of the "no dunks" mentality.

                        Given a choice between 1980s Phoenix Suns-style Walter Davis/Larry Nance
                        high-flying greyhound basketball, vs 1990s Miami/New York slowdown grunt
                        it out basketball, I'll take the Suns. Obviously this can be taken too
                        far, the 144-142 NBA All-star game scores are a perfect example, but the
                        pendulum's been too far in the anti-scoring direction for a decade or so.


                        --MKT
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.