great line

[sys]

bobby knight should be forced to write it on a chalkboard for the rest of his life.

It was 24 years ago that the NCAA painted the three-point line on the floor and while it changed the way the game is played, unfortunately it hasn’t had much of an effect on how the game is viewed.

http://www.basketballprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=610

[mcmwcat]

yup.  24 years ago bob knight was (or could) not going to change how he coached the game.

[chum1]

No one is interested in knowing how to better describe which team is intuitively "better shooting" just for the sake of knowing it.  People use FG% as something like an overall performance indicator.  As such, we already know that using it has limitations.  But that doesn't mean it's uninformative and should be rejected.  He also hasn't shown that it is typically less informative than a 2pt%/3pt% breakdown.  He'd have to do a lot more work to show that.

[mcmwcat]

He also hasn't shown that it is typically less informative than a 2pt%/3pt% breakdown.  He'd have to do a lot more work to show that.

weird.  i thought that's what he just did.

[chum1]

He also hasn't shown that it is typically less informative than a 2pt%/3pt% breakdown.  He'd have to do a lot more work to show that.

weird.  i thought that's what he just did.

why?

[mcmwcat]

i thought his example made the point just fine.  maryland is not a better shooting team than Louisville even though their FG% is higher.  one can't look at FG% to determine who is the better shooting team.  you have to look at 3PT rate and 3PT% or just look at eFG to determine the better shooting team.

however, i was never good at reading comprehension so i may be missing the point entirely.

[chum1]

i thought his example made the point just fine.  maryland is not a better shooting team than Louisville even though their FG% is higher.  one can't look at FG% to determine who is the better shooting team.  you have to look at 3PT rate and 3PT% or just look at eFG to determine the better shooting team.

however, i was never good at reading comprehension so i may be missing the point entirely.

i read the same thing, but that's different from what i said.  i was just talking about how he says nothing about the prevalence of that sort of example or how making the distinction vs. not making it affects things like predictability.  what he's actually doing is addressing our intuition about what a good shooting team is, but there's really not much use in that in itself.

[mcmwcat]

but he has done enough to show that eFG% > FG% is a better indicator (more informative) of which team is the better shooting team.

and i do think it is important to change the perception of the FG% stat; especially for hoops analyst that try to explain the game.  i'd rather see eFG stats than FG stats during analysis.  maybe it's just personal preference.

[sys]

poor chum1, a contrarian in search of controversy.

[0.42]

poor chum1, a contrarian in search of controversy.

BACK TO THE CATLAB!!

[chum1]

poor chum1, a contrarian in search of controversy.

i should have left you to your brilliant one man kenpom literary convention thread. 

bobby knight is funny.  love it when he talks about spradling.  hilarious.

[sys]

i should have left you to your brilliant one man kenpom literary convention thread.

well, lesson learned then.