Outlaw isn't that good

[mojomarc]

are you referring to eFG%. IMO, that's an overrated and somewhat misleading stat. By that measure, Martell is a better player then Brandon Roy, Kobe bryant, and Lebron James.

Agreed. I much prefer TS%, which has Martell leading Travis .534 to .501. Both shoot about the same percentage at three pointers, but Travis only takes about 8% of the shots from the three point line and Martell takes about 45% (doing math in my head so I may be off slightly, but you get the idea). So what this amounts to, Wiz, is you holding it against Martell because the offense calls for him to shoot a huge chunk of his shots from the three point line where he *only* shoots 38%, 23rd best in the league for players who attempt the 4.1/game that Martell tries. He's not a Peja Stojakovic at this point, but to saddle him with a .419 shooting percentage, compare it to Outlaw (which is really an apples to oranges comparison) and leave that as the basis for your dismissal just isn't right.

All the travis 'opponents' have talked about all the bad/difficult shots travis takes. On the other hand Webster gets a ton of open looks.

Virtually all of which are from three point range, where he is shooting a more than respectable 38% as I mentioned above.

And don't bother looking at clutch play stats if you're a Martell supporter...you'll gag. And I'd say clutch play was fairly imprtant.

It would be more important if Nate had actually had Martell in there for "clutch" time enough for that sample to be statistically significant. Seriously--even for Outlaw, who has been in the clutch situations as 82games defines it about 50% more times that Webster, only has a sample size of 119 total offensive shot opportunities. Martell has 77. So while you may think it's fairly important, I think it's just a small sampling that is far too small to use as the basis for any meaningful assertion one way or the other.

[Wizenheimer]

Agreed. I much prefer TS%, which has Martell leading Travis .534 to .501. Both shoot about the same percentage at three pointers, but Travis only takes about 8% of the shots from the three point line and Martell takes about 45% (doing math in my head so I may be off slightly, but you get the idea). So what this amounts to, Wiz, is you holding it against Martell because the offense calls for him to shoot a huge chunk of his shots from the three point line where he *only* shoots 38%, 23rd best in the league for players who attempt the 4.1/game that Martell tries. He's not a Peja Stojakovic at this point, but to saddle him with a .419 shooting percentage, compare it to Outlaw (which is really an apples to oranges comparison) and leave that as the basis for your dismissal just isn't right.

'apples to oranges' is an appropriate term for comparing outlaw to webster in a lot of ways. I've made that point before in various threads. They are asked to do different things in the games. As a matter of fact, Travis is getting slammed a lot in this thread for doing what we know the coaches are asking him to do: create offense for himself. Martell is assisted on 77% of his shots while travis only on 61%. That's a significant enough difference, that comparing the two players directly is probably invalid from the beginning. They have different styles and responsibilities within the offense.

by the way, your 45% is off more then slightly, martell takes about 32% of his shots from 3pt range.

It would be more important if Nate had actually had Martell in there for "clutch" time enough for that sample to be statistically significant. Seriously--even for Outlaw, who has been in the clutch situations as 82games defines it about 50% more times that Webster, only has a sample size of 119 total offensive shot opportunities. Martell has 77. So while you may think it's fairly important, I think it's just a small sampling that is far too small to use as the basis for any meaningful assertion one way or the other.

I disagree on that. It is a meaningful enough sample size to draw some conclusions, at least for this season. I'm not surprised you'd want to dismiss as irrelevant a category in which Martell has performed so abyssmally, especially in comparison to Travis.

But my post...if you recall...was in reaction to assertion about 82games.com showing martell outperforming travis in an area. I thought that other stats from that website should be brought in for fairness then. After all, the genesis of this thread wasn't praising martell, but rather condemning travis...although I think some believe those actions are interdependent.

Of course, stats are funny critters, We can each find some that support out POV.

I said in an earlier post, either this thread or another, that I'm weary of the travis vs martell debate. It's easily conceivable that both will be blazers next season and Jones will be gone. I remind you, that I said a couple of months ago portland should extend martell's contract this summer, if he had reasonable demands. I still think that. Of course, KP may have other ideas and he'll have the final word in this debate.

[mojomarc]

by the way, your 45% is off more then slightly, martell takes about 32% of his shots from 3pt range.

Sorry, Wiz. FGA measures all shots taken, not those shots taken that are only two point shots. Here's the math: he shoots 8.6 shots per game, 4.1 of which are 3 pointers. That's 47.67%. Outlaw, on the other hand, shoots 11.6 shots per game, 1 of which on average is a three. That's 8.62%. That's why I was saying you can't say that Travis is a better shooter at .453 than Webster at .419.

eFG% is a better way to measure things because it compensates for the higher point value of the more difficult three point shots, so even though you don't like it it actually is far, far more reflective of shooting quality because the higher your eFG%, the more points your shots are worth on average. Under eFG%, a player that shoots 33% from three point range is just as good a shooter as a player wo shoots 50% from two point range. Given that we generally consider players who shoot above both those marks good shooters, it makes far more sense to compare this than simple shooting percentage. TS% simply takes it a step further and compares the efficiency if you also include free throws, so I prefer it to eFG%, but even so there is absolutely no question that statistically eFG% gives you a more accurate comparison of shooting abilities than FG% that you were using, which was my point. Otherwise, you would have to conclude Shaq is a better shooter than Ray Allen is, and I don't know anyone who would say Shaq has anything remotely approaching good shooting form for anything outside of a dunk.

[TradeMachine]

Well, my OP kind of slapped me in the face after the Wizards game. Outlaw with a well rounded game of 18, 6, and 5 assists. Who woulda thunk it? He not only varied his offense and took good shots, but he passed the ball well.

Our offense, as a whole, hasn't looked this good since the game at NJ when we routed the Nets. There were back cuts, movement without the ball, and overall sharp play. I would have never guessed that it would come after Monday's horrible showing, and especially not after Roy/LA went down. We looked like we did during the streak.

Hope that continues and we get winning record.

[d-train]

eFG% is a better way to measure things because it compensates for the higher point value of the more difficult three point shots, so even though you don't like it it actually is far, far more reflective of shooting quality because the higher your eFG%, the more points your shots are worth on average. Under eFG%, a player that shoots 33% from three point range is just as good a shooter as a player wo shoots 50% from two point range.

A 3-point shot is not necessarily more difficult than a 2-point shot. A difficult shot is one taken in the heart of the defense. The objective is to get easy shots but to get easy shots you need to force the defense to fortify against an offensive threat and then quickly move the ball to the player the defense left open when it rotated. An offensive threat that requires defensive adjustments is what is valuable on offense. A player standing on the 3-point line to pop in open shots is doing nothing to create offense.

[Wizenheimer]

-= original quote snipped =-



Sorry, Wiz. FGA measures all shots taken, not those shots taken that are only two point shots. Here's the math: he shoots 8.6 shots per game, 4.1 of which are 3 pointers. That's 47.67%. Outlaw, on the other hand, shoots 11.6 shots per game, 1 of which on average is a three. That's 8.62%. That's why I was saying you can't say that Travis is a better shooter at .453 than Webster at .419.

eFG% is a better way to measure things because it compensates for the higher point value of the more difficult three point shots, so even though you don't like it it actually is far, far more reflective of shooting quality because the higher your eFG%, the more points your shots are worth on average. Under eFG%, a player that shoots 33% from three point range is just as good a shooter as a player wo shoots 50% from two point range. Given that we generally consider players who shoot above both those marks good shooters, it makes far more sense to compare this than simple shooting percentage. TS% simply takes it a step further and compares the efficiency if you also include free throws, so I prefer it to eFG%, but even so there is absolutely no question that statistically eFG% gives you a more accurate comparison of shooting abilities than FG% that you were using, which was my point. Otherwise, you would have to conclude Shaq is a better shooter than Ray Allen is, and I don't know anyone who would say Shaq has anything remotely approaching good shooting form for anything outside of a dunk.

you're right...I looked in the wrong box at espn....296/622 = .476

still, I'm not persuaded Martell's high % of threes compared to Outlaw demostrates superior shooting...just a different proiority

and that returns to my point that Martell and Travis have enough difference in their games to make direct comparisons break down quickly. They are expected to do different things in their times on the floor and they are generally playing with different personell. Martell would seem to complement the 'projected' starting line-up next season better. However, if Travis passes like he did last night, he'd be a good fit as well. And I don't think there's any denying how effective Travis has been as a 6th man this year.

When Martell plays like he has for the last 7 or 8 games and the first 7 or 8 games of the season, then the choice between him and james jones tilts heavily in his favor. He has more elements to his game, is more athletic, and I don't think he's missed a game due to injury...unlike Jones. But his inconsistency has been more his MO then how he has played the last few games. I'll give him this: this season has been a classic 2 steps forward - 1 step back. He's elevated his game over last year, even though his scoring rate is down. Another net step forward to start next season and he'll be pretty good. But he definitely needs to take that step.

Maybe Roy's groin injury will be a blessing in a fashion. I'd really like to see Webster log time at SG, especially with some responsibility of ball handling. It would interesting to see how he'd do at that. At the same time, it's important to work Travis at SF, and either prove or dispel the notion he can't be effective there. I think there's enough "evidence" to conclude KP will be quite active this summer, so determining the range of the 2 player's games may be critical. Especially considering the contracts of each player and their resulting salary cap effects.