Game 22: Minnesota Timberwolves (6-15) @ Toronto Raptors (14-7) - 7:00 PM ET

[Mattya]

A for the effort. But it's still not it. I believe the argument came up from a complaint that players don't pass when double-teamed. Your info provides statistic on shots with defender very close by. It doesn't account for shooting against multiple defenders. Let's say KAT just posts up his man one on one. Or Wiggins dribbles into mid range, pulls up and drills a shot while his defender tries to close out on his jumper. All that stuff should be accounted in your link. But again the complain is that they go into very tough shots with multiple defenders on them and ignore open teammates.

Also why can't we use eFG% here. If Rubio shoots 31.8% on open 3s then his eFG on those shots is 47.7. That's easily better than what Wiggins gives you on those closely contested shots as most of those are 2s and probably dwarfs what he gives you on contested shots when double-teamed.

-Well it doesn't matter what statistics I provide, you will ignore them, or will move the goal posts.
-because eFG accounts for more than just open 3s. That skews his eFG. Calculate his eFG on just 3 point shots and it would still be lower than Wiggins mid range field goal percentage.

I lost you there. So you offered comparison of Rubio's open 3s vs Wiggins contested 2s. A sample size of 10 open 3s at 32% clip would give you an outcome of 9.6 points. Not much I'd say. But then a sample size of 10 contested 2s at 37% clip offers even lower outcome of 7.4 points. You seem not to have the numbers on contested 2s vs double team, but it's sound logic to assume that it lowers the success %s. I don't understand how you can argue efficiency of open 3 vs highly contested 2.

Wiggins 2FG frequency on anything that considers him at least open or more(>4' from closest defender) is less than 20%. That includes all dunks, lay ups, shots. The rest of his 2FG frequency is against tight or very tight defense. So unless you think that less than 20% frequency is attributing to skewing Wiggins mid range shots. That just doesn't impact his shooting percentage from mid range enough to skew Wiggins percentages enough. Most of his shots are against tight defense.

[Mattya]

and then their is the 20% Rubio shoots on just "open" 3PA

[NewWolvesOrder]

I lost you there. So you offered comparison of Rubio's open 3s vs Wiggins contested 2s. A sample size of 10 open 3s at 32% clip would give you an outcome of 9.6 points. Not much I'd say. But then a sample size of 10 contested 2s at 37% clip offers even lower outcome of 7.4 points. You seem not to have the numbers on contested 2s vs double team, but it's sound logic to assume that it lowers the success %s. I don't understand how you can argue efficiency of open 3 vs highly contested 2.

Wiggins 2FG frequency on anything that considers him at least open or more(>4' from closest defender) is less than 20%. That includes all dunks, lay ups, shots. The rest of his 2FG frequency is against tight or very tight defense. So unless you think that less than 20% frequency is attributing to skewing Wiggins mid range shots. That just doesn't impact his shooting percentage from mid range enough to skew Wiggins percentages enough. Most of his shots are against tight defense.

Let me make it clear again. You just pointed that Wiggins shoots almost 37% on closely contested shots (2s). I think that those numbers include both shots over single coverage and double team. I also make assumption that his %s vs double team is worse than single coverage on those contested shots. Thus he shoots even worse vs double teams than 37% (let's say 31%). And in this case I fail to see how such shots can be considered better option than open 3s even by a badly shooting teammate. Because 31% on 3s is always better than 31% on 2s.

[NewWolvesOrder]

and then their is the 20% Rubio shoots on just "open" 3PA

It should be higher, he's always open. KAT/Wig need to do the math and pass the ball.

[Mattya]

I lost you there. So you offered comparison of Rubio's open 3s vs Wiggins contested 2s. A sample size of 10 open 3s at 32% clip would give you an outcome of 9.6 points. Not much I'd say. But then a sample size of 10 contested 2s at 37% clip offers even lower outcome of 7.4 points. You seem not to have the numbers on contested 2s vs double team, but it's sound logic to assume that it lowers the success %s. I don't understand how you can argue efficiency of open 3 vs highly contested 2.

Wiggins 2FG frequency on anything that considers him at least open or more(>4' from closest defender) is less than 20%. That includes all dunks, lay ups, shots. The rest of his 2FG frequency is against tight or very tight defense. So unless you think that less than 20% frequency is attributing to skewing Wiggins mid range shots. That just doesn't impact his shooting percentage from mid range enough to skew Wiggins percentages enough. Most of his shots are against tight defense.

Let me make it clear again. You just pointed that Wiggins shoots almost 37% on closely contested shots (2s). I think that those numbers include both shots over single coverage and double team. I also make assumption that he's %s vs double team is worse than single coverage on those contested shots. Thus he shoots even worse vs double teams than 37% (let's say 31%). And in this case I fail to see how such shots can be considered better option than open 3s even by a badly shooting teammate. Because 31% on 3s is always better than 31% on 2s.

and then their is the 20% Rubio shoots on just "open" 3PA

It should be higher, he's always open. KAT/Wig need to do the math and pass the ball.

Rubio has taken practically no shots that aren't consider open. If he is going to shoot between 20%(which accounts for more of his contested outside shots) to 33% on 3s that just isn't going to cut it. The outcome on his 24.4% 3s this year isn't higher than the outcome of Wiggins mid range shots.

Neither of these shots are particularly effective and that is part of the problem and on top of that it make the team very easy to guard. You get to throw a ton of attention at Wiggins, with very little risk of Ricky making you pay.

[NewWolvesOrder]

Rubio has taken practically no shots that aren't consider open. If he is going to shoot between 20%(which accounts for more of his contested outside shots) to 33% on 3s that just isn't going to cut it. The outcome on his 24.4% 3s this year isn't higher than the outcome of Wiggins mid range shots.

Neither of these shots are particularly effective and that is part of the problem and on top of that it make the team very easy to guard. You get to throw a ton of attention at Wiggins, with very little risk of Ricky making you pay.

Come on man, why are you mashing the contested 3s with open ones? You brought up the open 3s yourself. And rightfully so because the situation at hand is whether Wiggins/KAT should hoisted up a 2 over a double team or pass it out to a wide open Rubio that was left open by choice of the defense. I know that neither shot is particularly effective but simple math shows that one is more effective by about 50% compared to the other one ( at least in case of Wiggins, maybe not KAT).

[NewWolvesOrder]

BTW, KAT and Wiggins make that Rubio situation even worse because teams know that the pass isn't coming so the incentive to NOT to double team is almost zero.

[Mattya]

Rubio has taken practically no shots that aren't consider open. If he is going to shoot between 20%(which accounts for more of his contested outside shots) to 33% on 3s that just isn't going to cut it. The outcome on his 24.4% 3s this year isn't higher than the outcome of Wiggins mid range shots.

Neither of these shots are particularly effective and that is part of the problem and on top of that it make the team very easy to guard. You get to throw a ton of attention at Wiggins, with very little risk of Ricky making you pay.

Come on man, why are you mashing the contested 3s with open ones? You brought up the open 3s yourself. And rightfully so because the situation at hand is whether Wiggins/KAT should hoisted up a 2 over a double team or pass it out to a wide open Rubio that was left open by choice of the defense. I know that neither shot is particularly effective but simple math shows that one is more effective by about 50% compared to the other one ( at least in case of Wiggins, maybe not KAT).

because he takes practically no contested threes. He is either consider open or wide open on almost all of his outside shots. I only initially provided "wide open" to prove a point. His 3FG frequency is 3.7% on shots that defended "tight" or "very tight" that is practically nothing. This significant majority of his shots are OPEN, so there is practically no point in breaking apart his shooting percentage.

[NewWolvesOrder]

Rubio has taken practically no shots that aren't consider open. If he is going to shoot between 20%(which accounts for more of his contested outside shots) to 33% on 3s that just isn't going to cut it. The outcome on his 24.4% 3s this year isn't higher than the outcome of Wiggins mid range shots.

Neither of these shots are particularly effective and that is part of the problem and on top of that it make the team very easy to guard. You get to throw a ton of attention at Wiggins, with very little risk of Ricky making you pay.

Come on man, why are you mashing the contested 3s with open ones? You brought up the open 3s yourself. And rightfully so because the situation at hand is whether Wiggins/KAT should hoisted up a 2 over a double team or pass it out to a wide open Rubio that was left open by choice of the defense. I know that neither shot is particularly effective but simple math shows that one is more effective by about 50% compared to the other one ( at least in case of Wiggins, maybe not KAT).

because he takes practically no contested threes. He is either consider open or wide open on almost all of his outside shots. I only initially provided "wide open" to prove a point. His 3FG frequency is 3.7% on shots that defended "tight" or "very tight" that is practically nothing. This significant majority of his shots are OPEN, so there is practically no point in breaking apart his shooting percentage.

Why do you choose not to address the the rest of my post and nitpick one single sentence that doesn't even touch my main point? You keep avoiding what I've been saying thru several posts already. Good job.

[Mattya]

Come on man, why are you mashing the contested 3s with open ones? You brought up the open 3s yourself. And rightfully so because the situation at hand is whether Wiggins/KAT should hoisted up a 2 over a double team or pass it out to a wide open Rubio that was left open by choice of the defense. I know that neither shot is particularly effective but simple math shows that one is more effective by about 50% compared to the other one ( at least in case of Wiggins, maybe not KAT).

because he takes practically no contested threes. He is either consider open or wide open on almost all of his outside shots. I only initially provided "wide open" to prove a point. His 3FG frequency is 3.7% on shots that defended "tight" or "very tight" that is practically nothing. This significant majority of his shots are OPEN, so there is practically no point in breaking apart his shooting percentage.

Why do you choose not to address the the rest of my post and nitpick one single sentence that doesn't even touch my main point? You keep avoiding what I've been saying thru several posts already. Good job.

Show the math that says Rubio is more effective by 50% knowing that a SIGNIFICANT majority of Rubio's 24.4% are either open or wide open.

[NewWolvesOrder]

because he takes practically no contested threes. He is either consider open or wide open on almost all of his outside shots. I only initially provided "wide open" to prove a point. His 3FG frequency is 3.7% on shots that defended "tight" or "very tight" that is practically nothing. This significant majority of his shots are OPEN, so there is practically no point in breaking apart his shooting percentage.

Why do you choose not to address the the rest of my post and nitpick one single sentence that doesn't even touch my main point? You keep avoiding what I've been saying thru several posts already. Good job.

Show the math that says Rubio is more effective by 50% knowing that a SIGNIFICANT majority of Rubio's 24.4% are either open or wide open.

You just provided a link (on page 12) that shows he shoots 32% on wide open 3s.

and here's the rest by me:

You just pointed that Wiggins shoots almost 37% on closely contested shots (2s). I think that those numbers include both shots over single coverage and double team. I also make assumption that his %s vs double team is worse than single coverage on those contested shots. Thus he shoots even worse vs double teams than 37% (let's say 31%). And in this case I fail to see how such shots can be considered better option than open 3s even by a badly shooting teammate. Because 31% on 3s is always better than 31% on 2s

[Mattya]

Why do you choose not to address the the rest of my post and nitpick one single sentence that doesn't even touch my main point? You keep avoiding what I've been saying thru several posts already. Good job.

Show the math that says Rubio is more effective by 50% knowing that a SIGNIFICANT majority of Rubio's 24.4% are either open or wide open.

You just provided a link (on page 12) that shows he shoots 32% on wide open 3s.

and here's the rest by me:

You just pointed that Wiggins shoots almost 37% on closely contested shots (2s). I think that those numbers include both shots over single coverage and double team. I also make assumption that he's %s vs double team is worse than single coverage on those contested shots. Thus he shoots even worse vs double teams than 37% (let's say 31%). And in this case I fail to see how such shots can be considered better option than open 3s even by a badly shooting teammate. Because 31% on 3s is always better than 31% on 2s

Well I don't reply to this stuff, because you are completely making up a # for Wiggins contested mid range shots. On top of that you are completely ignoring Rubio's "open" #s and only using wide open. So comparing a made up #(that seems pretty bias and which you have no actual facts for) and then using less than the whole picture on Rubio's open or more shots. Not sure how I'm supposed to take that kind of comparison seriously.

[NewWolvesOrder]

I knew who I was getting into argument with and so a very sarcastic

I've had too much Mattya BS. I've had enough. Good night my friend.

[LesGrossman]

I knew who I was getting into argument with and so a very sarcastic

I've had too much Mattya BS. I've had enough. Good night my friend.

Lol. Took you a while to realize you were being clowned. filter feature works well for those occasions.

[Mattya]

I knew who I was getting into argument with and so a very sarcastic

I've had too much Mattya BS. I've had enough. Good night my friend.

as I posted when you initially started replying to me

it doesn't matter what statistics I provide, you will ignore them, or will move the goal posts.

not surprisingly that is exactly what happened. On top of that you completely made up stats, and only used the stats that make Rubio look okay, while ignoring the stats that don't.

If you have some actual stats to back up your claims, I'll acknowledge them. I'll be waiting...

[NewWolvesOrder]

I knew who I was getting into argument with and so a very sarcastic

I've had too much Mattya BS. I've had enough. Good night my friend.

Lol. Took you a while to realize you were being clowned. filter feature works well for those occasions.

He can have his signature last word. IDGAF

[Mattya]

Two trolls, complain when they can't back up their claims with actual facts. So sad.