2023-24 Regular Season

[ijspeelman]

Finally finished this project after much deliberation (and sickness).

Next step is the analysis, perhaps some speculative or statistical correlation to things like W-L and injuries?

Do teams play short rotations due to injuries or are the short rotations contributing to injures?

Do we think coaches at one end are more secure in their job than coaches at the other? Do years of pro experience of the roster correlate to the cut off point?

What about blowouts? A team either enjoying or suffering a lot of blowsouts should be playing a longer rotation? What if we filter and only look at close games?

For instance, Porzingis is currently out with a calf strain, but his minutes had been kept relatively low. Playing him at all may be the major risk factor; but at least the Celtics didn't rush him back a game later to see if they couldn't make it worse.

I'm not looking to absolve JBB as I believe developing a bench is an essential part of coaching; but there may be more lessons to be learned besides wow, we're at the wrong end of this list.

I literally was working on both the bolded points as we speak haha. Want to grab injured players per game and also graph against W/L%.

This is all anecdotal, but what is interesting to see is that some of the breakout teams (OKC, IND, ORL) are near the end playing more players with at least 10 MP per game

And some of the underperforming teams (CLE, ATL, MIA) are at the end playing less.

[ijspeelman]

Finally finished this project after much deliberation (and sickness).

I should be able to be able to pull this data for any time period now fairly quickly

Sorry if I am missing something here, but these are just raw numbers correct? This doesn't have the context that would allow to say things like "this clearly shows the Cavs play short rotations", right?

This is looking at the box scores of every game played this season and counting each time a player played 10 mins or more and then dividing by total games played for each team.

[jasonxxx102]

If JBB ever does get canned, it'll be interesting how the FO and new coach approach our "twin towers". JBB has gotten a lot of mileage out of starting our two non-shooting big men, but how many other coaches want to take a job where whatever system they implement will always have a certain level of klunkiness because of the pairing?

It's a lot easier to design an offense when you can put 4 or 5 shooters on the floor.

What offense work well with just 3?

Are there any proponents of the triangle left in the league?

Would it even still work? Luke Walton?

One team has four titles in the past decade with two guys who you don't want shooting the 3 in the starting lineup. One year, Walton was even in charge.

Meh, the Draymond thing is a little overblown. For his first 3 rings he shot 4.3, 4.6, and 3.8 three point attempts in the playoffs, one season even hitting 41% of them.

That situation is nothing like the Cavs. Allen didn't attempt a 3 pointer last season in the first round and Mobley only attempted 1. In the play-in games the year prior, Mobley went 1-3 in the close out game from deep, no other attempts for either.

Mobley and Allen aren't even looking at a shot from outside 3 feet. Plus in both seasons they had Okoro in the front court rotation, who can't shoot either.

Exactly this.

It’s not as much about making 3s as it is taking them.

If Evan took 4 a game and only hit 1 that’s wildly different than not even attempting 1.

[JonFromVA]

One team has four titles in the past decade with two guys who you don't want shooting the 3 in the starting lineup. One year, Walton was even in charge.

Meh, the Draymond thing is a little overblown. For his first 3 rings he shot 4.3, 4.6, and 3.8 three point attempts in the playoffs, one season even hitting 41% of them.

That situation is nothing like the Cavs. Allen didn't attempt a 3 pointer last season in the first round and Mobley only attempted 1. In the play-in games the year prior, Mobley went 1-3 in the close out game from deep, no other attempts for either.

Mobley and Allen aren't even looking at a shot from outside 3 feet. Plus in both seasons they had Okoro in the front court rotation, who can't shoot either.

Exactly this.

It’s not as much about making 3s as it is taking them.

If Evan took 4 a game and only hit 1 that’s wildly different than not even attempting 1.

Yes, it is wildly different. It would hurt our team and our offensive efficiency and do nothing to improve our floor spacing.

[jbk1234]

If JBB ever does get canned, it'll be interesting how the FO and new coach approach our "twin towers". JBB has gotten a lot of mileage out of starting our two non-shooting big men, but how many other coaches want to take a job where whatever system they implement will always have a certain level of klunkiness because of the pairing?

It's a lot easier to design an offense when you can put 4 or 5 shooters on the floor.

What offense work well with just 3?

Are there any proponents of the triangle left in the league?

Would it even still work? Luke Walton?

I think with a coaching change, the core 4 breaking up should happen too.

Let's say they keep JB through the whole season, another early disappointment in April for the 3rd consecutive season.

If Mitchell refuses to re-sign, move off him and Allen and get a new coach. We have a decent starting back court in Garland and Strus. Where Mobley plays in the front court i think is irrelevant, i think combining him with guys that fit is more important.

So if we want a guy like Lopez to start or Gordon, just whatever we did, we gotta make sure on both ends, the fit and scheme make sense. From there I think you need a Wiggins/MPJ/Middleton type to really round out the starting 5.

Shoot or draft Bronny and hopefully LBJ comes along.

1. Garland/MLE player (mayb CPJ)/TJ
2. Strus/LeVert/Bronny
3. LBJ/Bates/Travers
4. Mobley/Niang/Wade
5. Stretch 5 who protects the rim/Diop/TT

If you fire JBB mid-season, the main reason you do it is because you want to see what the core 4 look like under a different coach before you make any franchise altering decisions. The reality is that Garland and Mitchell are missing shots they normally make, at the same time, and that's not really a coaching issue. A bigger sample size is warranted IMO and I wanted JBB fired after the Knicks series.

I don't like the idea of trading Allen (at least not for anything reasonable). I feel like that would sacrifice too much defense for any hoped-for offensive gains to offset. Also, it's not like our Niang line-ups are producing exceptional results so you're getting glimpses of what that trade off looks like. Ironically, Wade starting at SF has gone a lot better for us despite him shooting below his career average.

Mobley has had some growth in terms of his midrange this season, and if he can consistently hit shots from 12-15 feet, that will open up the floor considerably. That may, or may not, happen this season which was the big problem with the Mitchell trade. We needed more runway in terms of development than we had after trading for Mitchell.

Front offices get paid not to be prisoners of the moment and give into frustration. While the Cavs aren't pretty to watch with Garland and Mitchell slumping at the same time, I keep coming back to how many times the Celtics have started the first half of the season in a funk only to put it together in the second half and go on a deep playoff run. Talent usually finds a way even if the road is bumpy at first.

Unless he's lost the team, or there are real locker room issues we don't know about, the Cavs should stay the course for 20 more games.

[JujitsuFlip]

Finally finished this project after much deliberation (and sickness).

I should be able to be able to pull this data for any time period now fairly quickly

Sorry if I am missing something here, but these are just raw numbers correct? This doesn't have the context that would allow to say things like "this clearly shows the Cavs play short rotations", right?

That is precisely what the data shows.

[JujitsuFlip]

If JBB ever does get canned, it'll be interesting how the FO and new coach approach our "twin towers". JBB has gotten a lot of mileage out of starting our two non-shooting big men, but how many other coaches want to take a job where whatever system they implement will always have a certain level of klunkiness because of the pairing?

It's a lot easier to design an offense when you can put 4 or 5 shooters on the floor.

What offense work well with just 3?

Are there any proponents of the triangle left in the league?

Would it even still work? Luke Walton?

I think with a coaching change, the core 4 breaking up should happen too.

Let's say they keep JB through the whole season, another early disappointment in April for the 3rd consecutive season.

If Mitchell refuses to re-sign, move off him and Allen and get a new coach. We have a decent starting back court in Garland and Strus. Where Mobley plays in the front court i think is irrelevant, i think combining him with guys that fit is more important.

So if we want a guy like Lopez to start or Gordon, just whatever we did, we gotta make sure on both ends, the fit and scheme make sense. From there I think you need a Wiggins/MPJ/Middleton type to really round out the starting 5.

Shoot or draft Bronny and hopefully LBJ comes along.

1. Garland/MLE player (mayb CPJ)/TJ
2. Strus/LeVert/Bronny
3. LBJ/Bates/Travers
4. Mobley/Niang/Wade
5. Stretch 5 who protects the rim/Diop/TT

If you fire JBB mid-season, the main reason you do it is because you want to see what the core 4 look like under a different coach before you make any franchise altering decisions. The reality is that Garland and Mitchell are missing shots they normally make, at the same time, and that's not really a coaching issue. A bigger sample size is warranted IMO and I wanted JBB fired after the Knicks series.

I don't like the idea of trading Allen (at least not for anything reasonable). I feel like that would sacrifice too much defense for any hoped-for offensive gains to offset. Also, it's not like our Niang line-ups are producing exceptional results so you're getting glimpses of what that trade off looks like. Ironically, Wade starting at SF has gone a lot better for us despite him shooting below his career average.

Mobley has had some growth in terms of his midrange this season, and if he can consistently hit shots from 12-15 feet, that will open up the floor considerably. That may, or may not, happen this season which was the big problem with the Mitchell trade. We needed more runway in terms of development than we had after trading for Mitchell.

Front offices get paid not to be prisoners of the moment and give into frustration. While the Cavs aren't pretty to watch with Garland and Mitchell slumping at the same time, I keep coming back to how many times the Celtics have started the first half of the season in a funk only to put it together in the second half and go on a deep playoff run. Talent usually finds a way even if the road is bumpy at first.

Unless he's lost the team, or there are real locker room issues we don't know about, the Cavs should stay the course for 20 more games.

20 more games really does nothing, other than cement JB as the coach for the entire season. Which is moot bc u doubt anyone in the Cavs front office has the nuts to fire JB in-season and honestly it's starting to feel like they probably won't even do it this summer.

Also, you reference the Celtics but go on a run as in make the playoffs and are an early exit for the 3rd straight season? If so, not really a "run" i care for.

Replacing Allen with a Brook Lopez archetype wouldn't kill the defense and would help provide floor spacing. If there is a guy like that out there in the league or a prospect, i don't know. But if you return that player in the Mitchell trade then moving Allen for a 3&D wing makes all the sense in the world.

[JonFromVA]

If JBB ever does get canned, it'll be interesting how the FO and new coach approach our "twin towers". JBB has gotten a lot of mileage out of starting our two non-shooting big men, but how many other coaches want to take a job where whatever system they implement will always have a certain level of klunkiness because of the pairing?

It's a lot easier to design an offense when you can put 4 or 5 shooters on the floor.

What offense work well with just 3?

Are there any proponents of the triangle left in the league?

Would it even still work? Luke Walton?

I think with a coaching change, the core 4 breaking up should happen too.

Let's say they keep JB through the whole season, another early disappointment in April for the 3rd consecutive season.

If Mitchell refuses to re-sign, move off him and Allen and get a new coach. We have a decent starting back court in Garland and Strus. Where Mobley plays in the front court i think is irrelevant, i think combining him with guys that fit is more important.

So if we want a guy like Lopez to start or Gordon, just whatever we did, we gotta make sure on both ends, the fit and scheme make sense. From there I think you need a Wiggins/MPJ/Middleton type to really round out the starting 5.

Shoot or draft Bronny and hopefully LBJ comes along.

1. Garland/MLE player (mayb CPJ)/TJ
2. Strus/LeVert/Bronny
3. LBJ/Bates/Travers
4. Mobley/Niang/Wade
5. Stretch 5 who protects the rim/Diop/TT

If you fire JBB mid-season, the main reason you do it is because you want to see what the core 4 look like under a different coach before you make any franchise altering decisions. The reality is that Garland and Mitchell are missing shots they normally make, at the same time, and that's not really a coaching issue. A bigger sample size is warranted IMO and I wanted JBB fired after the Knicks series.

I don't like the idea of trading Allen (at least not for anything reasonable). I feel like that would sacrifice too much defense for any hoped-for offensive gains to offset. Also, it's not like our Niang line-ups are producing exceptional results so you're getting glimpses of what that trade off looks like. Ironically, Wade starting at SF has gone a lot better for us despite him shooting below his career average.

Mobley has had some growth in terms of his midrange this season, and if he can consistently hit shots from 12-15 feet, that will open up the floor considerably. That may, or may not, happen this season which was the big problem with the Mitchell trade. We needed more runway in terms of development than we had after trading for Mitchell.

Front offices get paid not to be prisoners of the moment and give into frustration. While the Cavs aren't pretty to watch with Garland and Mitchell slumping at the same time, I keep coming back to how many times the Celtics have started the first half of the season in a funk only to put it together in the second half and go on a deep playoff run. Talent usually finds a way even if the road is bumpy at first.

Unless he's lost the team, or there are real locker room issues we don't know about, the Cavs should stay the course for 20 more games.

I just want to see moves that improve the team, so I can't talk about the benefit of firing JBB without knowing who we can bring in to replace him. The appeal of a more traditional lineup is obvious, but our klunky lineup does indeed work.

Part of the problem I feel is Cleveland paranoia. We shouldn't just assume Mitchell is going to walk away or that if he does it will doom the team.

[mcfly1204]

Finally finished this project after much deliberation (and sickness).

I should be able to be able to pull this data for any time period now fairly quickly

Sorry if I am missing something here, but these are just raw numbers correct? This doesn't have the context that would allow to say things like "this clearly shows the Cavs play short rotations", right?

This is looking at the box scores of every game played this season and counting each time a player played 10 mins or more and then dividing by total games played for each team.

Gotcha, so for a 3 game sample:

12/02 - 7 players logging >= 10 minutes
11/30 - 8
11/28 - 8

An average of 7.67 players log >= 10 minutes per game? What is the context around 10 minutes?

[jasonxxx102]

Meh, the Draymond thing is a little overblown. For his first 3 rings he shot 4.3, 4.6, and 3.8 three point attempts in the playoffs, one season even hitting 41% of them.

That situation is nothing like the Cavs. Allen didn't attempt a 3 pointer last season in the first round and Mobley only attempted 1. In the play-in games the year prior, Mobley went 1-3 in the close out game from deep, no other attempts for either.

Mobley and Allen aren't even looking at a shot from outside 3 feet. Plus in both seasons they had Okoro in the front court rotation, who can't shoot either.

Exactly this.

It’s not as much about making 3s as it is taking them.

If Evan took 4 a game and only hit 1 that’s wildly different than not even attempting 1.

Yes, it is wildly different. It would hurt our team and our offensive efficiency and do nothing to improve our floor spacing.

Wrong but ok. Just google floor gravity and how it applies the situation.

It's just math, there's an actual calculation behind it.

[jbk1234]

I think with a coaching change, the core 4 breaking up should happen too.

Let's say they keep JB through the whole season, another early disappointment in April for the 3rd consecutive season.

If Mitchell refuses to re-sign, move off him and Allen and get a new coach. We have a decent starting back court in Garland and Strus. Where Mobley plays in the front court i think is irrelevant, i think combining him with guys that fit is more important.

So if we want a guy like Lopez to start or Gordon, just whatever we did, we gotta make sure on both ends, the fit and scheme make sense. From there I think you need a Wiggins/MPJ/Middleton type to really round out the starting 5.

Shoot or draft Bronny and hopefully LBJ comes along.

1. Garland/MLE player (mayb CPJ)/TJ
2. Strus/LeVert/Bronny
3. LBJ/Bates/Travers
4. Mobley/Niang/Wade
5. Stretch 5 who protects the rim/Diop/TT

If you fire JBB mid-season, the main reason you do it is because you want to see what the core 4 look like under a different coach before you make any franchise altering decisions. The reality is that Garland and Mitchell are missing shots they normally make, at the same time, and that's not really a coaching issue. A bigger sample size is warranted IMO and I wanted JBB fired after the Knicks series.

I don't like the idea of trading Allen (at least not for anything reasonable). I feel like that would sacrifice too much defense for any hoped-for offensive gains to offset. Also, it's not like our Niang line-ups are producing exceptional results so you're getting glimpses of what that trade off looks like. Ironically, Wade starting at SF has gone a lot better for us despite him shooting below his career average.

Mobley has had some growth in terms of his midrange this season, and if he can consistently hit shots from 12-15 feet, that will open up the floor considerably. That may, or may not, happen this season which was the big problem with the Mitchell trade. We needed more runway in terms of development than we had after trading for Mitchell.

Front offices get paid not to be prisoners of the moment and give into frustration. While the Cavs aren't pretty to watch with Garland and Mitchell slumping at the same time, I keep coming back to how many times the Celtics have started the first half of the season in a funk only to put it together in the second half and go on a deep playoff run. Talent usually finds a way even if the road is bumpy at first.

Unless he's lost the team, or there are real locker room issues we don't know about, the Cavs should stay the course for 20 more games.

20 more games really does nothing, other than cement JB as the coach for the entire season. Which is moot bc u doubt anyone in the Cavs front office has the nuts to fire JB in-season and honestly it's starting to feel like they probably won't even do it this summer.

Also, you reference the Celtics but go on a run as in make the playoffs and are an early exit for the 3rd straight season? If so, not really a "run" i care for.

Replacing Allen with a Brook Lopez archetype wouldn't kill the defense and would help provide floor spacing. If there is a guy like that out there in the league or a prospect, i don't know. But if you return that player in the Mitchell trade then moving Allen for a 3&D wing makes all the sense in the world.

In the Tatum/Brown era, the Celtics have lost in the first round once, and that was with Kyrie on the floor. They've made the ECF multiple times and the Finals once. That's better than 95% of the NBA.

As far as JBB, my concern is that firing JBB due to Garland and Mitchell missing shots they normally hit reeks of desperation and will be perceived as desperate around the league. If things don't improve after the move, and you end up having to trade Mitchell, you'll get low-balled.

[ijspeelman]

12/02 - 7 players logging >= 10 minutes
11/30 - 8
11/28 - 8

An average of 7.67 players log >= 10 minutes per game?

Correct.

What is the context around 10 minutes?

Teams all around the league deal with injuries and still find ways to give 9 or 10 guys 10+ minutes in the rotation.

Somewhat arbitrarily decided by Jujitsu as showcasing a player that played substantial minutes in a game.

This number could be changed, but it seems like a solid starting point.

[JujitsuFlip]

Sorry if I am missing something here, but these are just raw numbers correct? This doesn't have the context that would allow to say things like "this clearly shows the Cavs play short rotations", right?

This is looking at the box scores of every game played this season and counting each time a player played 10 mins or more and then dividing by total games played for each team.

Gotcha, so for a 3 game sample:

12/02 - 7 players logging >= 10 minutes
11/30 - 8
11/28 - 8

An average of 7.67 players log >= 10 minutes per game? What is the context around 10 minutes?

I just threw out 10 minutes as what I consider a guy to be in the rotation. I told speelman he could use whatever # but since toooskies and i's debate was largely focused on that 10 minute conversation, speelman just opted to make that the static variable.

I made a thread out on the GB with a poll about what makes a player in the rotation, the poll largely agrees it is someone who plays 10+ minutes in a game. Within the thread there are some different contexts/ideas. Idk what a rotation player is to you specifically but just something I've always felt.

For a live example one guy getting 4 minutes in the 1st half only and 2 guys getting 2.5 minutes in just the 3rd quarter, to me aren't in the rotation but idk, I'm sure you have your own ideology on it.

[ijspeelman]

Exactly this.

It’s not as much about making 3s as it is taking them.

If Evan took 4 a game and only hit 1 that’s wildly different than not even attempting 1.

Yes, it is wildly different. It would hurt our team and our offensive efficiency and do nothing to improve our floor spacing.

Wrong but ok. Just google floor gravity and how it applies the situation.

It's just math, there's an actual calculation behind it.

The formula is not going to apply to Mobley's case who has only shot 23% on all threes and 23.4% on wide open threes for his career.

A team would be wise to allow Mobley to shoot a wide open three on every possession for an entire game. I don't believe Mobley shooting more threes grants him more gravity until he can at least hit above 33-34% wide open as a big. Even then, a team would prefer that shot to most other shots we could generate.



^ stats from NBA.com

[JujitsuFlip]

If you fire JBB mid-season, the main reason you do it is because you want to see what the core 4 look like under a different coach before you make any franchise altering decisions. The reality is that Garland and Mitchell are missing shots they normally make, at the same time, and that's not really a coaching issue. A bigger sample size is warranted IMO and I wanted JBB fired after the Knicks series.

I don't like the idea of trading Allen (at least not for anything reasonable). I feel like that would sacrifice too much defense for any hoped-for offensive gains to offset. Also, it's not like our Niang line-ups are producing exceptional results so you're getting glimpses of what that trade off looks like. Ironically, Wade starting at SF has gone a lot better for us despite him shooting below his career average.

Mobley has had some growth in terms of his midrange this season, and if he can consistently hit shots from 12-15 feet, that will open up the floor considerably. That may, or may not, happen this season which was the big problem with the Mitchell trade. We needed more runway in terms of development than we had after trading for Mitchell.

Front offices get paid not to be prisoners of the moment and give into frustration. While the Cavs aren't pretty to watch with Garland and Mitchell slumping at the same time, I keep coming back to how many times the Celtics have started the first half of the season in a funk only to put it together in the second half and go on a deep playoff run. Talent usually finds a way even if the road is bumpy at first.

Unless he's lost the team, or there are real locker room issues we don't know about, the Cavs should stay the course for 20 more games.

20 more games really does nothing, other than cement JB as the coach for the entire season. Which is moot bc u doubt anyone in the Cavs front office has the nuts to fire JB in-season and honestly it's starting to feel like they probably won't even do it this summer.

Also, you reference the Celtics but go on a run as in make the playoffs and are an early exit for the 3rd straight season? If so, not really a "run" i care for.

Replacing Allen with a Brook Lopez archetype wouldn't kill the defense and would help provide floor spacing. If there is a guy like that out there in the league or a prospect, i don't know. But if you return that player in the Mitchell trade then moving Allen for a 3&D wing makes all the sense in the world.

In the Tatum/Brown era, the Celtics have lost in the first round once, and that was with Kyrie on the floor. They've made the ECF multiple times and the Finals once. That's better than 95% of the NBA.

As far as JBB, my concern is that firing JBB due to Garland and Mitchell missing shots they normally hit reeks of desperation and will be perceived as desperate around the league. If things don't improve after the move, and you end up having to trade Mitchell, you'll get low-balled.

Well, that was kinda my point though, we're not the Celtics.

All we can go off of for this Cavs core is 2 strong regular seasons and 2 early post season exits. I don't feel like even if the Cavs some how win 66 games this season that they're all of a sudden setup for post season success.

[jasonxxx102]

Yes, it is wildly different. It would hurt our team and our offensive efficiency and do nothing to improve our floor spacing.

Wrong but ok. Just google floor gravity and how it applies the situation.

It's just math, there's an actual calculation behind it.

The formula is not going to apply to Mobley's case who has only shot 23% on all threes and 23.4% on wide open threes for his career.

A team would be wise to allow Mobley to shoot a wide open three on every possession for an entire game. I don't believe Mobley shooting more threes grants him more gravity until he can at least hit above 33-34% wide open as a big. Even then, a team would prefer that shot to most other shots we could generate.



^ stats from NBA.com

If you plot Anthony Davis, Giannis, and Gobert. Calculate off-ball perimeter gravity for each, you will see that both AD and Giannis have a significantly higher number than Gobert.

Again, simply shooting the ball, regardless of your percentage, increases your gravity more than someone who doesn't shoot at all. This is just a fact. It's not really arguable. I'm not just pulling this out of thin air or basing it off anecdote. This is something that is calculated.

Of course there is 1 exception (there's always an exception to a rule), and that's Draymond. We can pretty easily figure out why because he plays next to the 2 greatest shooters in NBA history who you can't even leave open for half a second.

[ijspeelman]

Wrong but ok. Just google floor gravity and how it applies the situation.

It's just math, there's an actual calculation behind it.

The formula is not going to apply to Mobley's case who has only shot 23% on all threes and 23.4% on wide open threes for his career.

A team would be wise to allow Mobley to shoot a wide open three on every possession for an entire game. I don't believe Mobley shooting more threes grants him more gravity until he can at least hit above 33-34% wide open as a big. Even then, a team would prefer that shot to most other shots we could generate.



^ stats from NBA.com

If you plot Anthony Davis, Giannis, and Gobert. Calculate off-ball perimeter gravity for each, you will see that both AD and Giannis have a significantly higher number than Gobert.

Again, simply shooting the ball, regardless of your percentage, increases your gravity more than someone who doesn't shoot at all. This is just a fact. It's not really arguable. I'm not just pulling this out of thin air or basing it off anecdote. This is something that is calculated.

Of course there is 1 exception (there's always an exception to a rule), and that's Draymond. We can pretty easily figure out why because he plays next to the 2 greatest shooters in NBA history who you can't even leave open for half a second.

Its an estimation of gravity and not an exact science. It makes sense that a calculation focused on gravity would boost it up for players that shoot more threes (and of course make more), but that doesn't mean the basketball court follows these results.

Giannis shooting the basketball from three hurts his team. As would Gobert if he started putting them up at low efficiency.

An increase in gravity is not always worth the decrease in overall team offensive efficiency.

[jasonxxx102]

The only other thing I will add is that there’s clearly a cutoff. It’ll take some figuring out but like less than 2 attempts per game is treated as close to 0 and obviously if you’re shooting like 10 or 20% nobody is gonna guard you.

From what I’ve looked at briefly even at sub 30% if you’re close to 3/GM you’re going to have more gravity

[jasonxxx102]

The formula is not going to apply to Mobley's case who has only shot 23% on all threes and 23.4% on wide open threes for his career.

A team would be wise to allow Mobley to shoot a wide open three on every possession for an entire game. I don't believe Mobley shooting more threes grants him more gravity until he can at least hit above 33-34% wide open as a big. Even then, a team would prefer that shot to most other shots we could generate.



^ stats from NBA.com

If you plot Anthony Davis, Giannis, and Gobert. Calculate off-ball perimeter gravity for each, you will see that both AD and Giannis have a significantly higher number than Gobert.

Again, simply shooting the ball, regardless of your percentage, increases your gravity more than someone who doesn't shoot at all. This is just a fact. It's not really arguable. I'm not just pulling this out of thin air or basing it off anecdote. This is something that is calculated.

Of course there is 1 exception (there's always an exception to a rule), and that's Draymond. We can pretty easily figure out why because he plays next to the 2 greatest shooters in NBA history who you can't even leave open for half a second.

Its an estimation of gravity and not an exact science. It makes sense that a calculation focused on gravity would boost it up for players that shoot more threes (and of course make more), but that doesn't mean the basketball court follows these results.

Giannis shooting the basketball from three hurts his team. As would Gobert if he started putting them up at low efficiency.

You’re saying it hurts his team but the data clearly shows the floor is more open when he does. Again, I’m not just making this up. The data clearly supports it

Being useless outside the paint hurts your team more

[ijspeelman]

If you plot Anthony Davis, Giannis, and Gobert. Calculate off-ball perimeter gravity for each, you will see that both AD and Giannis have a significantly higher number than Gobert.

Again, simply shooting the ball, regardless of your percentage, increases your gravity more than someone who doesn't shoot at all. This is just a fact. It's not really arguable. I'm not just pulling this out of thin air or basing it off anecdote. This is something that is calculated.

Of course there is 1 exception (there's always an exception to a rule), and that's Draymond. We can pretty easily figure out why because he plays next to the 2 greatest shooters in NBA history who you can't even leave open for half a second.

Its an estimation of gravity and not an exact science. It makes sense that a calculation focused on gravity would boost it up for players that shoot more threes (and of course make more), but that doesn't mean the basketball court follows these results.

Giannis shooting the basketball from three hurts his team. As would Gobert if he started putting them up at low efficiency.

You’re saying it hurts his team but the data clearly shows the floor is more open when he does. Again, I’m not just making this up. The data clearly supports it

I added the following line to my last comment and its really my main takeaway:

An increase in gravity is not always worth the decrease in overall team offensive efficiency.

I do not doubt that shooting threes increases your gravity despite poor efficiency, but I am unsure how well it correlates with an increase in offensive efficiency.