Romeo Langford

[cybergates]

5 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

You realize we can still look at the percentages for individual players, right?

Of course. But for individual players there is no best shot in basketball, just a best shot for them. I guarantee Tim Duncan's analytics don't show his shot selection to be "hurting his team" or the corner 3 to be his best shot. I'd argue that he didn't shoot enough 3's to even have a big enough sample size to include it in his "best shot" consideration. Of course, uncontested 2 would be his best shot, but that's not an easy shot to get so you have to move down the list. Players can't get their best shot anytime they want it, so they play the game and use their basketball IQ to take good shots. 

For the record, I'm a CPA and love analytics.

[KoB2011]

4 minutes ago, cybergates said:

Of course. But for individual players there is no best shot in basketball, just a best shot for them. I guarantee Tim Duncan's analytics don't show his shot selection to be "hurting his team" or the corner 3 to be his best shot.

For the record, I'm a CPA and love analytics.

I think we have to recognize the game has changed a lot even in the couple years since Duncan retired, let alone when he was in his prime. That said, I'd argue a two point shot that you can't make 50% or better does hurt your team in a vacuum. 

Basketball is of course not played on a vacuum so there are other considerations, but there is a reason elite tall guys no longer play in the post like they used to. 

[Hoosierhoopster]

^^ Good discussion guys. Analytics and how well they work in the day-to-day world of basketball, for particular teams and players, will never be perfect, but they're certainly helpful.

I remain in the middle here. Duncan was the Big Fundamental, that elbow bank shot of his was money, he helped his team to multiple championships, the shots he took were, by and large, absolutely good for his team, he was the key player, or one of the key players in that almost two-decade run of playoffs and multiple championships. For that matter, he 'spread the floor' in a different way that guys hitting 3's spread the floor. He opened up driving lanes for Parker et al., and when you collapsed on him he could get to the basket.

But there is no question that -- with the right shooters -- the corner 3 is the most efficient shot in pro basketball. On a overall basketball basis, the mid-range 2 is a bad shot, but you have to factor in the team and players taking those shots and how they produce them. It's never as easy as saying, hey, the 3 is the most efficient shot, stop taking 2's, that's a bad shot. 

[cybergates]

41 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

I think we have to recognize the game has changed a lot even in the couple years since Duncan retired, let alone when he was in his prime. That said, I'd argue a two point shot that you can't make 50% or better does hurt your team in a vacuum. 

Basketball is of course not played on a vacuum so there are other considerations, but there is a reason elite tall guys no longer play in the post like they used to. 

Absolutely agree that the game has changed. I'm on basketball-reference a lot messing around with it to create draft classes and sliders for NBA 2k19, and I'm amazed all the time by the drastic changes in the league #'s. 

Also agree that there are reason(s) that there are very few post players in the league anymore. Analytics is a more recent one I would think, Tall players over the past couple of decades or so have been groomed to expand their game and not just be a post player. I think this can somewhat be traced back to Euro ball's influence on the US.

I"m no expert and think that analytics are a great tool, but if used as an end-all be-all that's a mistake. If the analytics tell us that Duncan, Shaq, Abdul-Jabbar, Chamberlain, Russell, Olajuwon, Ewing, etc, would be worthless if they came in as rookies in today's NBA, then I for one would be the 1st to try to take advantage of that by drafting them later than they should be taken, and playing a style contra to the league norm.

[IU Scott]

37 minutes ago, Hoosierhoopster said:

^^ Good discussion guys. Analytics and how well they work in the day-to-day world of basketball, for particular teams and players, will never be perfect, but they're certainly helpful.

I remain in the middle here. Duncan was the Big Fundamental, that elbow bank shot of his was money, he helped his team to multiple championships, the shots he took were, by and large, absolutely good for his team, he was the key player, or one of the key players in that almost two-decade run of playoffs and multiple championships. For that matter, he 'spread the floor' in a different way that guys hitting 3's spread the floor. He opened up driving lanes for Parker et al., and when you collapsed on him he could get to the basket.

But there is no question that -- with the right shooters -- the corner 3 is the most efficient shot in pro basketball. On a overall basketball basis, the mid-range 2 is a bad shot, but you have to factor in the team and players taking those shots and how they produce them. It's never as easy as saying, hey, the 3 is the most efficient shot, stop taking 2's, that's a bad shot. 

When I played I was a pretty good 3 point shooter but the corner 3 was my least favorite place to shoot the 3.  I always though the top of the key or the wings were an easier shot and that is where I made most of my 3's.  To me any shot you hit is a good shot and a person should shoot from where they are comfortable shooting.  Also I just like seeing different kinds of offenses where they have some diversity and not just have one way to play the game.  I am afraid that all the analytics is taking that diversity away and everyone will just shoot 3's and layups and to me that is not that entertaining.  This is coming from a person who could only do a couple of things well on the court and one of them was to shoot the 3.

[Brass Cannon]

2 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

When I played I was a pretty good 3 point shooter but the corner 3 was my least favorite place to shoot the 3.  I always though the top of the key or the wings were an easier shot and that is where I made most of my 3's.  To me any shot you hit is a good shot and a person should shoot from where they are comfortable shooting.

If a kid in college is hitting corner 3s at a lower clip than other 3s then his shooting coach isn’t doing a good job. 

Same with a kid who is hitting mid range jumpers at a higher clip than shots in the paint. 

A kid being bad at something that is good for the team isn’t an excuse to not do it. It’s a reason to get better. 

 

[IU Scott]

6 minutes ago, Brass Cannon said:

If a kid in college is hitting corner 3s at a lower clip than other 3s then his shooting coach isn’t doing a good job. 

Same with a kid who is hitting mid range jumpers at a higher clip than shots in the paint. 

A kid being bad at something that is good for the team isn’t an excuse to not do it. It’s a reason to get better. 

 

Did not say they shouldn't work on their hole game but I just don't buy that certain shots are bad for a team if they are hitting those shots.  I understand when you are shooting and your foot crosses the 3pt line and that being bad but not a good 15 foot shot that goes in.

[Brass Cannon]

1 minute ago, IU Scott said:

Did not say they shouldn't work on their hole game but I just don't buy that certain shots are bad for a team if they are hitting those shots.  I understand when you are shooting and your foot crosses the 3pt line and that being bad but not a good 15 foot shot that goes in.

Say you hit that 15 footer at a 50 percent clip. And you hit three pointers at a 35 percent clip. 

Which one is better for the team?  

The two pointer would have an expected point gain of 1 point while the three would be 1.05 points. 

The lower percentage shot is better in the long term. Now if you are down one with the last shot that obviously doesn’t apply. 

[IU Scott]

One last thing about analytics I think most enjoy that aspect due to fantasy sports where the only thing that matters is stats.   I listen to some of the guys at work talk about sports and it is always about their fantasy teams and how they are doing in their league.  You don't hear them talking about the actual game because they really don't care about the game itself.  If that is the way for you to enjoy sports that is great but why do you guys put down people who don't really care for the analytics of the game.  When I grew up you just had your normal stats of points/assist/rebounds and to me that was fine and the only stat I really care about is wins/losses. 

[IU Scott]

3 minutes ago, Brass Cannon said:

Say you hit that 15 footer at a 50 percent clip. And you hit three pointers at a 35 percent clip. 

Which one is better for the team?  

The two pointer would have an expected point gain of 1 point while the three would be 1.05 points. 

The lower percentage shot is better in the long term. Now if you are down one with the last shot that obviously doesn’t apply. 

For me shooting the 15 footer because it gives the other team less  opportunity to take those miss shots for easy points.  You miss long 3's it is like the first pass out for a fast break which will lead to the other team getting points.  Also if you have all of your players around the 3 line then you will be less likely to get offensive rebounds.  also if you are only shooting 3's you will not get fouled a lot and get to the free throw line which are easy points.

[Brass Cannon]

Just now, IU Scott said:

For me shooting the 15 footer because it gives the other team less  opportunity to take those miss shots for easy points.  You miss long 3's it is like the first pass out for a fast break which will lead to the other team getting points.

I’m pretty sure that there’s been research to disprove the belief that opponents score more on missed 3s than other missed shots 

[Stromboli]

1 hour ago, cybergates said:

Of course. But for individual players there is no best shot in basketball, just a best shot for them. I guarantee Tim Duncan's analytics don't show his shot selection to be "hurting his team" or the corner 3 to be his best shot. I'd argue that he didn't shoot enough 3's to even have a big enough sample size to include it in his "best shot" consideration. Of course, uncontested 2 would be his best shot, but that's not an easy shot to get so you have to move down the list. Players can't get their best shot anytime they want it, so they play the game and use their basketball IQ to take good shots. 

For the record, I'm a CPA and love analytics.

 

I don't want to sit here and repeat myself.  It's just information available that can be utilized to help win a game.  eFG% is one of the most important stats in the game, and a much better indicator of good shooting than just FG%.  And shooting 2pt jumpers simply wrecks your eFG%.  It doesn't matter that he's remarkably better at shooting 2pt jumpers than other players, when the other players have a better eFG% by shooting at the rim or behind the line instead.  

36 minutes ago, cybergates said:

[snip]

I"m no expert and think that analytics are a great tool, but if used as an end-all be-all that's a mistake. If the analytics tell us that Duncan, Shaq, Abdul-Jabbar, Chamberlain, Russell, Olajuwon, Ewing, etc, would be worthless if they came in as rookies in today's NBA, then I for one would be the 1st to try to take advantage of that by drafting them later than they should be taken, and playing a style contra to the league norm.

 

 

That's silly.  You wouldn't ignore all the other attributes of a player (e.g. rebounding, defense).  eFG% isn't the only stat that matters, but it is possibly the most important.  Free throw rate, free throw percentage, and rebounding are all huge.  We'll just keep talking about Tim Duncan.  If you look at where he ranks in the NBA, he's at the top for blocks and rebounds, while still being very respectable (but not elite) in scoring.  As a result, his PER (player efficiency rating, which takes into account everything) results in him being #4 in PER (adjusted for 48 minutes) in regular season, and #18 in the playoffs.  I'm not saying Tim Duncan wasn't good.  He was exceptional overall.  But we're talking specifically of the value of 2pt jumpers.  Tim Duncan's excellent PER was in spite of his poor shot selection, not because of it.  He can still be one of the greatest players ever and also hurt his team by taking too many 2pt jumpers.  

 

NOW, of course there's more to the game.  A good shooter attracts more attention, thereby opening opportunities for teammates.  I get it.  But to use analytics, I think a good coach would look at a 45% shooter from the long 2, and tell his guys to give up that shot, guard the drive or pass to the basket, and get ready to box out for the rebound.  That is a better strategy over the long run.

 

Maybe Brad Stevens is a great person to tie in here.  The guy had the best first 6 years to a college coaching career ever.  He was a total unknown when hired.  And he was one of the first to utilize analytics in the college game.  It worked.  Now he's the hottest coach in the NBA, and it's still working.  He was looking at eFG% and similar stats before it was cool.  You look into it now, and he's also very interested in lineup analytics.  For anyone that followed Yogi in Dallas, he was part of the Mavericks "death lineup" last year that was the most effective 5 man combination in the entire NBA, and it was mostly back-ups and Dirk. 

 

1 minute ago, IU Scott said:

[SNIP]  If that is the way for you to enjoy sports that is great but why do you guys put down people who don't really care for the analytics of the game.  When I grew up you just had your normal stats of points/assist/rebounds and to me that was fine and the only stat I really care about is wins/losses. 

 

No one is putting you down.  And please stay consistent.  If you only care about wins/losses, then analytics are very important.  

 

 

 

[rico]

Why is it, that I get a headache when discussing metrics?

[cybergates]

2 hours ago, IU Scott said:

When I played I was a pretty good 3 point shooter but the corner 3 was my least favorite place to shoot the 3.  I always though the top of the key or the wings were an easier shot and that is where I made most of my 3's.  To me any shot you hit is a good shot and a person should shoot from where they are comfortable shooting.  Also I just like seeing different kinds of offenses where they have some diversity and not just have one way to play the game.  I am afraid that all the analytics is taking that diversity away and everyone will just shoot 3's and layups and to me that is not that entertaining.  This is coming from a person who could only do a couple of things well on the court and one of them was to shoot the 3.

This is NBA being discussed where the corner 3 is a shorter distance than other 3's. In high school with a uniform distance for all 3's it wouldn't apply, so analytics would say any 3 in HS.

[dgambill]

On ‎10‎/‎25‎/‎2018 at 1:37 PM, IU Scott said:

Totally agree with you because I would rather have someone making  around 60% of their 2's than a person hitting around 40% of their 3's.  That is two more misses every 10 shots which gives you opponents more chances to run and get easy baskets off of your misses.  Also if everyone is around the 3 point line you don't have a great chance on getting the offensive rebound.  What I use to like about basketball was that teams played a lot fo different styles but today it seems like everyone is trying to play the same way which gets boring.

To me it's entirely about WHO is shooting the 3's. It's a much better shot for those that shoot 40% and higher....but for guys that shoot in the low 30's I would not wanting them shooting many if not any at all. Not when they can either get to the rim or get an uncontested 15 footer. I know people stand around out there for spacing etc but if they can't hit the shot they are just wasting opportunities. I agree...the running and shooting bad 3 pointers is annoying. Watching the ball get moved around inside and outside and watching the old Boston Celtic highlights and the Lakers....pretty exciting basketball to me. Some people like Cherry Pie some Apple...to each their own....NBA is almost not watchable due to the traveling, carrying the ball (I hate this the most), and way way too many 3pt shots. JMO

[dgambill]

3 hours ago, Stromboli said:

 

I don't want to sit here and repeat myself.  It's just information available that can be utilized to help win a game.  eFG% is one of the most important stats in the game, and a much better indicator of good shooting than just FG%.  And shooting 2pt jumpers simply wrecks your eFG%.  It doesn't matter that he's remarkably better at shooting 2pt jumpers than other players, when the other players have a better eFG% by shooting at the rim or behind the line instead.  

 

 

That's silly.  You wouldn't ignore all the other attributes of a player (e.g. rebounding, defense).  eFG% isn't the only stat that matters, but it is possibly the most important.  Free throw rate, free throw percentage, and rebounding are all huge.  We'll just keep talking about Tim Duncan.  If you look at where he ranks in the NBA, he's at the top for blocks and rebounds, while still being very respectable (but not elite) in scoring.  As a result, his PER (player efficiency rating, which takes into account everything) results in him being #4 in PER (adjusted for 48 minutes) in regular season, and #18 in the playoffs.  I'm not saying Tim Duncan wasn't good.  He was exceptional overall.  But we're talking specifically of the value of 2pt jumpers.  Tim Duncan's excellent PER was in spite of his poor shot selection, not because of it.  He can still be one of the greatest players ever and also hurt his team by taking too many 2pt jumpers.  

 

NOW, of course there's more to the game.  A good shooter attracts more attention, thereby opening opportunities for teammates.  I get it.  But to use analytics, I think a good coach would look at a 45% shooter from the long 2, and tell his guys to give up that shot, guard the drive or pass to the basket, and get ready to box out for the rebound.  That is a better strategy over the long run.

 

Maybe Brad Stevens is a great person to tie in here.  The guy had the best first 6 years to a college coaching career ever.  He was a total unknown when hired.  And he was one of the first to utilize analytics in the college game.  It worked.  Now he's the hottest coach in the NBA, and it's still working.  He was looking at eFG% and similar stats before it was cool.  You look into it now, and he's also very interested in lineup analytics.  For anyone that followed Yogi in Dallas, he was part of the Mavericks "death lineup" last year that was the most effective 5 man combination in the entire NBA, and it was mostly back-ups and Dirk.  

 

 

No one is putting you down.  And please stay consistent.  If you only care about wins/losses, then analytics are very important.  

 

 

 

So how come Boston is taking 4 more 3's a game this year and their efg% is down over 5% over last year? Their poor play so far this year I directly relate to their poor shot selection....they simply are taking too many 3's by guys that have no business shooting that many 3's. I'm not trying to narrow it down to one thing but the fact remains....not all shots are equal for all players. Taking an uncontested 15 footer for a lot of players is indeed a much better shot than an uncontested 3 for the same player...and all we are doing is forcing players to become the same...discounting the other facets of the game that create value like causing fouls on an opponent and generating free throws are much more difficult to do standing around the 3pt line.

[rico]

57 minutes ago, dgambill said:

So how come Boston is taking 4 more 3's a game this year and their efg% is down over 5% over last year? Their poor play so far this year I directly relate to their poor shot selection....they simply are taking too many 3's by guys that have no business shooting that many 3's. I'm not trying to narrow it down to one thing but the fact remains....not all shots are equal for all players. Taking an uncontested 15 footer for a lot of players is indeed a much better shot than an uncontested 3 for the same player...and all we are doing is forcing players to become the same...discounting the other facets of the game that create value like causing fouls on an opponent and generating free throws are much more difficult to do standing around the 3pt line.

Coach...."Son, why are you taking all those outside shots?"

Player...."Coach, I am wide open."

Coach..."There is a reason for that."

[BDB]

[Hoosierhoopster]

50 minutes ago, BDB said:

Lol love me some old Chevy Chase 

[rico]

16 minutes ago, Hoosierhoopster said:

Lol love me some old Chevy Chase 

"Takes a big man to admit that he is wrong....I am not a big man."--------Fletch

[milehiiu]

Romeo on ESPN's preseason All-American third team.

College basketball ESPN's preseason All-America team

[dbmhoosier]

On 10/26/2018 at 5:41 PM, Hoosierhoopster said:

Lol love me some old Chevy Chase 

Age has not been kind to Chevy.  Did you see him in the recent Vacation movie where he had a cameo?  Lordy.

 

[RomeoFanatic]

https://www.sbnation.com/a/ncaa-college-basketball-top-players-2018/amp?__twitter_impression=true Langford at 13

[BEKA]

Maybe time to shut down this Romeo thread. I mean, fat Chevy Chase is kinda funny, but relevant how? 

[FW_Hoosier]

3 minutes ago, BEKA said:

Maybe time to shut down this Romeo thread. I mean, fat Chevy Chase is kinda funny, but relevant how? 

Shut the thread down a half hour before we’re gonna see take the floor for IU for the first time??