By reilo Go To PostDid Shanks write this?
lmao poverty franchise seriously
“He won us some rings.
Fin”
We have his statue at Staples and his jersey up in the rafters. But slaent gets upset Lakers PR is shorter than the clippers.
By unknown Go To Postno excuses, luka been playing injured.which is probably a bad idea
By pilonv1 Go To PostYou mean the team that never 3peated?
Jerry's greatest achievement.
RIP logo, one of the best ever
By reilo Go To PostAll of them except Garland (who had a FT% that told you his shooting was probably fake) shot like 8% worse from three lol. There are reasons Sheppard might fail, but "he won't be an elite shooter" is not one of them.
By blackace Go To PostI kinda feel shooting has never been a knock on Reed. 😂I've definitely seen people try to argue that his shooting won't be that special, mostly centered around his 3PA/100 not being as high as other elite shooting prospects and his FT% not being at the level you'd expect for this caliber of shooter (though still very good). Having his similarity projections come up with good but not great shooters is typically what you get when you run his stuff through such models. Which is a concern I'd take more seriously if (1) he didn't have a bunch of other touch indicators like STL%, high midrange%, etc., (2) he didn't have a 90 FT% last year in high school, or (3) you couldn't break down his shooting in pretty much any way imaginable and he still retains elite efficiency (today I learned a new one: he shot 49.7% from the NBA three point line). Everything in his shot profile screams outlier. His low usage rate is definitely weird and I can't attribute all of it to Cal, but typically if he was reluctant to shoot because there were situations where he wasn't comfortable getting his shot off (contested, off the dribble, far from the line, against top 50 schools, off screens, etc.) you'd expect to see him actually failing in those situations, not being elite in them.
By friskySHOOKface Go To PostPorzingus not playing isn’t a surpriseIf he doesn't play tonight, I would imagine he's not playing the rest of the series.
He’ll be saved for game 4 or game 5
By friskySHOOKface Go To PostPorzingus not playing isn’t a surprisefrom the looks of it he might not be back period
He’ll be saved for game 4 or game 5
By Sharp Go To PostI've definitely seen people try to argue that his shooting won't be that special, mostly centered around his 3PA/100 not being as high as other elite shooting prospects and his FT% not being at the level you'd expect for this caliber of shooter (though still very good). Having his similarity projections come up with good but not great shooters is typically what you get when you run his stuff through such models. Which is a concern I'd take more seriously if (1) he didn't have a bunch of other touch indicators like STL%, high midrange%, etc., (2) he didn't have a 90 FT% last year in high school, or (3) you couldn't break down his shooting in pretty much any way imaginable and he still retains elite efficiency (today I learned a new one: he shot 49.7% from the NBA three point line). Everything in his shot profile screams outlier. His low usage rate is definitely weird and I can't attribute all of it to Cal, but typically if he was reluctant to shoot because there were situations where he wasn't comfortable getting his shot off (contested, off the dribble, far from the line, against top 50 schools, off screens, etc.) you'd expect to see him actually failing in those situations, not being elite in them.yeah but if you put stock in those similarity scores he has like a 33% to be fringe ass bum.
And some guys on that list are still young so we will have to see.
I guess if his floor is Nik then you'd be comfortable taking him high in most drafts
By blackace Go To Postyeah but if you put stock in those similarity scores he has like a 33% to be fringe ass bum.I'm saying I wouldn't really put much stock in those similarity scores since they are just going off the stats you see here, which don't reflect most of that stuff, and are (I strongly suspect) using linear estimates of similarity where they shouldn't. i.e. it seems like 53% vs 44% from three and 44% vs 36% from three would be equally weighted in this model given similar attempts / 3PAr / other stuff, but in reality 53% is way more of an outlier and a much stronger signal compared to 44% than 44% is compared to 36% (and 44% is already a pretty damn good signal). For example, the one guy who shot 47% (Garland) had a way better outcome than any of the 44% guys, because even though it was obviously fake shooting you also can't be that fake of a shooter and put up a 47% season your freshman year. Reed is similar: the odds are very much against him being a true 53% shooter, but the odds his true 3P% is in the mid 30s like "89.9% similar" Chris Duarte are basically zero.
And some guys on that list are still young so we will have to see.
I guess if his floor is Nik then you'd be comfortable taking him high in most drafts
We can see that with even a simple model of three point shooting: average variance for a binomial distribution is σ^2 = np(1-p). If Duarte's true mean was around 35% (something we don't really know since he only played a few seasons, but let's assume for the sake of simplicity that it's true) and he took 144 3PA, the variance would be around 5.73, meaning results like his are only two standard deviations from his "true" mean (i.e. there's about a 5% chance he would be that far from 35% by sheer luck, and 2.5% that he'd be that far above his true mean). Considering there are hundreds of prospects in any given draft class, assuming everyone's mean were 35% (not true, but the variance only gets lower if the mean is further from 50%) there will be potentially dozens of shooters with that kind of volume who are that far off by chance, and about half of those will be higher by that much. Since very high 3P% shooters are far more likely to get drafted, and an outlier high 3P% after 144 attempts are much more likely to be overestimates rather than underestimates of a shooter's mean, we'd expect a disproportionate number of NBA prospects drafted due to one great shooting year to turn out to be okay shooters who got lucky by about that much.
By contrast, Reed's 3P% on an identical number of shots is about 4.5 standard deviations away from 35%--meaning, someone with a true 3P% like Duarte's having Reed's outlier shooting performance would only happen once in every 150,000 times (and once in 300,000 before seeing that kind of performance specifically above rather than below the shooter's mean). It would take hundreds of draft classes where every single major conference player took at least 144 threes with a true mean of 35% from three to expect even one player to have a performance that far above their mean, and that's without considering factors like prior FT%, other touch indicators, etc.
Obviously this is a simplified model because shooting threes isn't as simple as flipping a coin, but hopefully that illustrates why linear weights are inappropriate here. This is also a big part of the issue I have with a lot of draft models, they very often use poorly justified underlying assumptions (baked into the regression analyses they use) that disregard things we already know about how the NBA works. Using linear weights for outlier 3P% is just one example of that.
By Pac-2 Go To PostJust once I need Sharp to not write an essay.Psht, you haven't even read his engineering proofs -- and yes they end in QED
By unknown Go To Postmavs cookingLooking much better tonight in terms of shot quality.
By friskySHOOKface Go To PostSHOOKtics missing open 3’sProbably not a blowout, but I was expecting a close game tonight even with Porzingis so a Mavs win wouldn't surprise me. Home court advantage is very real in the postseason.
Expecting a blow out
By DY_nasty Go To Postlol maxiHe's really not good, I think I said this when he came back but I really don't think he should even be in the playoff rotation. Maybe he'll prove me wrong now that I shit talked him like Josh Hart did to you, but I kinda doubt it.
By You got 14 bricks right there? Go To PostKeep falling down on your shots and taking 15 seconds to get up Luka.I think it's cool that people were pretending for a little bit that him vs Jokic was somehow an interesting discussion.
By Sharp Go To PostI think it's cool that people were pretending for a little bit that him vs Jokic was somehow an interesting discussion.
Luka is only 100% likeable when playing the Clippers.
By Sharp Go To PostProbably not a blowout, but I was expecting a close game tonight even with Porzingis so a Mavs win wouldn't surprise me. Home court advantage is very real in the postseason.Looking accurate so far. With Porzingis out Lively can have closer to his normal impact which boosts the Mavs' team strength to what I was originally expecting, rather than him being totally unplayable and the Mavs looking like garbage.
the sky have a dearth of playmaking
just not enough people that put pressure on the defense
they rely almost entirely on steals and transition offense
so many shotclock violations
just not enough people that put pressure on the defense
they rely almost entirely on steals and transition offense
so many shotclock violations