Open looks on offense

[KqWIN]

As far as I'm concerned, the defense gameplan of your opponent is independent of whether or not it's a good shot. UTA and HOU game planed to give up wide open three point shots. It didn't make them bad shots, neither did the result. What makes a shot a good shot is the expected value from that shot and the alternative of not shooting it.

To your point about about extensional definitions vs intensional definitions, we're talking about wide open shots in a intensional sense. You can argue whether it's good or not, but the fact is, the Jazz shot horribly on wide open shots in the series versus wide open shots in the regular season.

We're getting on a side tangent here, but this is really the point. Whether or not these are good shots is besides the point. The point was that the Jazz heavily underperformed in this area. That's what cost them this series. On the flipside, HOU over performing on these same shots is what allowed them to win.

3 point shooting, especially against the air, is highly variable. This is well researched and written about. In a small sample size of 5 games, this can have a huge impact, and it did.

So there are two senses of good shots we need to distinguish. Is an individual shot a good shot? and is it a good shot for an offense? If you go for expected point outcome, that's might tell us about the first sense, if you set an arbitrary value over which it counts as good. But it fails to understand the context of an offense.

The intension extension point was about the goodness of the shot, not just the shot itself.

I don't think any of this is beside the point... It is integral to understanding what a good shot is, which is our question. I marked in blue some inferences where I disagree.

Forget the good vs bad shot thing. You keep bringing up subjective arguments, and it wasn't the point anyways. I could just as easily say "failure to understand the context of an offense" the other way. If you want to call them bad based on the context of the offense, more power to ya. I disagree, not the point. The point is that the Jazz underperformed on these intensionally defined shots. That's why the primary reason why the offense underperformed, failure to make wide open shots.

[Luigi]

As far as I'm concerned, the defense gameplan of your opponent is independent of whether or not it's a good shot. UTA and HOU game planed to give up wide open three point shots. It didn't make them bad shots, neither did the result. What makes a shot a good shot is the expected value from that shot and the alternative of not shooting it.

To your point about about extensional definitions vs intensional definitions, we're talking about wide open shots in a intensional sense. You can argue whether it's good or not, but the fact is, the Jazz shot horribly on wide open shots in the series versus wide open shots in the regular season.

We're getting on a side tangent here, but this is really the point. Whether or not these are good shots is besides the point. The point was that the Jazz heavily underperformed in this area. That's what cost them this series. On the flipside, HOU over performing on these same shots is what allowed them to win.

3 point shooting, especially against the air, is highly variable. This is well researched and written about. In a small sample size of 5 games, this can have a huge impact, and it did.

So there are two senses of good shots we need to distinguish. Is an individual shot a good shot? and is it a good shot for an offense? If you go for expected point outcome, that's might tell us about the first sense, if you set an arbitrary value over which it counts as good. But it fails to understand the context of an offense.

The intension extension point was about the goodness of the shot, not just the shot itself.

I don't think any of this is beside the point... It is integral to understanding what a good shot is, which is our question. I marked in blue some inferences where I disagree.

Forget the good vs bad shot thing. You keep bringing up subjective arguments, and it wasn't the point anyways. I could just as easily say "failure to understand the context of an offense" the other way. If you want to call them bad based on the context of the offense, more power to ya. I disagree, not the point. The point is that the Jazz underperformed on these intensionally defined shots. That's why the primary reason why the offense underperformed, failure to make wide open shots.

I don't know why you think you can set the terms of the discussion here. I am making a point about the quality of a shot, which requires goodness. What are the subjective elements of my claims? I haven't really appealed to my personal experience. I've given arguments moving from different kinds of accounts of shots and goodness.

The context point was specific. If you take the expected point value of an individual shot and give that as your definition of a good shot, the definition suffers by not being able to account for goodness in a context. I'm curious how you can say the same thing about my account... where the context is built in.

I don't think it follows that the primary reason the offense underperformed was missing open shots. It could be that we took the wrong shots in the first place. Which is the alternative view I am presenting.

[KqWIN]

I said that the expected value of a shot matters as well as the alternative of not shooting. That is literally acknowledging the context of the offense. What other context do you need?

You acknowledge that your opinion of good is not in alignment with the actual percentages. You're watching the games and thinking that because HOU is conceding their shots, they must be bad shots. That is subjectivity. That doesn't mean it's wrong, it's just based on subjectivity. Your "most convincing argument" is that the team should not play that way based on their strengths. But you're self defining those strengths.

The Jazz underperformed on the shots they did take, specifically wide open three pointers. That is a 100%, hard fact. There's no subjectivity in that. The wide open shots are literally not falling.

[Luigi]

I said that the expected value of a shot matters as well as the alternative of not shooting. That is literally acknowledging the context of the offense. What other context do you need?

Yes, this is a kind of context. But I think there is more to ask for. If the question is about whether the shot is good for an offense (rather than good in isolation). On your definition, the shot is good because it tends to go in (given by a certain % taken from past instances) more than not shooting (which must mean in comparison to other possible shots, since not shooting at all would mean shot clock violations). But if that's the definition of the goodness of a shot, the contextual element can only be cached out in terms of another percentage (the alternative shot). This leaves out the interplay between shots taken over time, since the goodness of each individual shot is determined entirely by percentages, per your definition. So I think there are other factors to explain, that go beyond extensional definitions that use pure percentages (measurements of past events).

You acknowledge that your opinion of good is not in alignment with the actual percentages. You're watching the games and thinking that because HOU is conceding their shots, they must be bad shots. That is subjectivity. That doesn't mean it's wrong, it's just based on subjectivity. Your "most convincing argument" is that the team should not play that way based on their strengths. But you're self defining those strengths.

My account of goodness (which I also believe) is based on different elements than simple percentages, yes. But that isn't basing it on subjectivity. You are missing out on non-subjective, yet non-extensional elements of explanation here.

I don't think I've self defined the strengths. I haven't defined them at all, I'm leaving them as the undefined elements in the explanation. I take it that it is fairly clear who the good shooters are, independent of actual percentages for a season, which are a function of a lot of factors besides the shooting skill of the player (e.g., opportunity, defenses, teammates). It would take a lot of time to give a basis for strengths of each player. But since we pretty much agree, I don't think we should. We can take our shared judgments about the quality of shooter, and put it to work in the analysis of a good shot (where we disagree about the analysis).

The Jazz underperformed on the shots they did take, specifically wide open three pointers. That is a 100%, hard fact. There's no subjectivity in that. The wide open shots are literally not falling.

I've never disagreed with the percentages. There is room here to ask about what under-performance is. But my main difference is in the explanatory inference you make from it (that it is the main reason we lost) and your explanation for it (statistical variance and no other reason). I mean, surely I'm not just saying that the percentages aren't the percentages...

[KqWIN]

Yes, this is a kind of context. But I think there is more to ask for. If the question is about whether the shot is good for an offense (rather than good in isolation). On your definition, the shot is good because it tends to go in (given by a certain % taken from past instances) more than not shooting (which must mean in comparison to other possible shots, since not shooting at all would mean shot clock violations). But if that's the definition of the goodness of a shot, the contextual element can only be cached out in terms of another percentage (the alternative shot). This leaves out the interplay between shots taken over time, since the goodness of each individual shot is determined entirely by percentages, per your definition. So I think there are other factors to explain, that go beyond extensional definitions that use pure percentages (measurements of past events).

Please explain, what are the other factors to consider beyond the EV of a shot and the EV of the alternatives. EV is not purely shooting percentages by the way. Explain it to me like I'm 5 if you could

My account of goodness (which I also believe) is based on different elements than simple percentages, yes. But that isn't basing it on subjectivity. You are missing out on non-subjective, yet non-extensional elements of explanation here.

Forming an opinion based on your personal account is subjectivity. Again, that doesn't make it wrong, but it is subjective. Please explain the non-subjective arguments you have. I must be missing them.

I don't think I've self defined the strengths. I haven't defined them at all, I'm leaving them as the undefined elements in the explanation. I take it that it is fairly clear who the good shooters are, independent of actual percentages for a season, which are a function of a lot of factors besides the shooting skill of the player (e.g., opportunity, defenses, teammates). It would take a lot of time to give a basis for strengths of each player. But since we pretty much agree, I don't think we should. We can take our shared judgments about the quality of shooter, and put it to work in the analysis of a good shot (where we disagree about the analysis).

If you haven't defined the strengths, then you haven't defined any shot as a good or bad shot. By insisting that a wide open 3 from Crowder is not a good shot, your are implying that it is not a strength of is. Truth is, we have all formed an opinion on the strengths and weaknesses of a player. Logically, that opinion follows from the process in your first point. We observe something in the past and based on that we make an expectation.

I've never disagreed with the percentages. There is room here to ask about what under-performance is. But my main difference is in the explanatory inference you make from it (that it is the main reason we lost) and your explanation for it (statistical variance and no other reason). I mean, surely I'm not just saying that the percentages aren't the percentages...

If you shoot 38% over a large period time and then shoot 24% that is underperformance. Please save us a semantics argument if you disagree and think that underperforming is not shooting under your normal performance. That underperformance causes direct impact. This impact is what caused the offense to be inefficient. Given an average performance on those shots, the series would still be going. Now, you could make an argument that 38% shouldn't be the expectation. I've heard many of them, have not found any of them convincing.

It's pretty straight forward to me. But since you're presenting the idea that we took the wrong shots in the first place, I love to see the argument for that. It could be. Anything could be a reason. What makes you think that it's a matter of taking the wrong shots, versus simply not making the ones we did take?

[Luigi]

Please explain, what are the other factors to consider beyond the EV of a shot and the EV of the alternatives. EV is not purely shooting percentages by the way. Explain it to me like I'm 5 if you could

"The interplay between shots taken over time" is what I identified in the last post. This comprises a lot of factors. One simple example, a good drive, or even the threat of one, has an effect on defenses, which make other shots more possible. Which, of course, you well know. However, the way I thought you were using expected value was based on percentages alone--expectations based on past shots, and value based on likeliness to go in from those past successes. But, as I tried to point out, that analysis of good shots will have a very hard time with the relational parts of an offense. Like any system with complex interactions, taking the measurements as primary, when they are interdependent, will miss the story. To use an analogy, there can be different explanations for something as simple as sitting down. Person 1 could explain it in terms of the positions of biological terms (skin, bones, blood, muscles, etc...) explaining their positions throughout the movement. Person 2 could explain it in terms of the positions of all the atoms involved in the scenario. Person 3 could do it in terms of human actions (instead of motions), where biological elements are secondary in the explanation. It is tempting to say it is all semantic here, but surely sitting down is not simply the changing locations of skin, bones, muscle, etc... The appropriate terms are about human activity. Likewise, when describing something like a game, the different explanations will have different commitments (more than just semantics), and different explanatory value.

But I'm surprised to hear it is more than the number of shots made and missed from different positions on the floor, since the rest seemed subjective to you. Perhaps you could tell me more about what you take expected value to be.

Forming an opinion based on your personal account is subjectivity. Again, that doesn't make it wrong, but it is subjective. Please explain the non-subjective arguments you have. I must be missing them.

We need to pin down what we mean by subjective. Most accounts I have seen take subjectivity to be something essentially personal, unsharable. Pains, itches, etc... But the way I think you are taking subjective (correct me if I'm wrong) is to be anything that is not extensionally defined. In this case, not defined by actual shot events that have been measured on the basketball floor in the past. But that's not a very useful account of subjectivity. I mean , I don't think it is a subjective sentence to say "Curry is a better shooter than Crowder" even if I don't resort to % to explain it. A lot of mathematical propositions, for example, aren't measurable in the extensional sense being used here, yet that are far from being subjective propositions.

If you haven't defined the strengths, then you haven't defined any shot as a good or bad shot. By insisting that a wide open 3 from Crowder is not a good shot, your are implying that it is not a strength of is. Truth is, we have all formed an opinion on the strengths and weaknesses of a player. Logically, that opinion follows from the process in your first point. We observe something in the past and based on that we make an expectation.

I think I can define good shots in terms of strong shooters, and leave strength undefined. That can be a problem, but since it is already agreed upon, it's unnecessary. The way our judgments about strengths are formed need not factor in here, all we need is somewhat close agreement that a player is a strong or weak shooter. If we disagree about the strengths of shooters, though, then yes, this will be a problem.

If you shoot 38% over a large period time and then shoot 24% that is underperformance. Please save us a semantics argument if you disagree and think that underperforming is not shooting under your normal performance. That underperformance causes direct impact. This impact is what caused the offense to be inefficient. Given an average performance on those shots, the series would still be going. Now, you could make an argument that 38% shouldn't be the expectation. I've heard many of them, have not found any of them convincing.

I left the under-performance point to the side on purpose, I only marked it for you since it includes something you might consider subjective, that is, it is not simply identical with the percentages. But I didn't take it as a main point, like I said. Still, it is worth pointing out that the conditions may have changed enough between the two numbers to make one wonder whether they have, in fact, under-performed. I do think the named shooters under-performed, so it's not that big of a deal. Still, we might disagree about how badly they under-performed. And what that means for the offense. And what that means for the wins and losses. Flagging the inference from %s is important, given the rest of the discussion so far (I don't take %s the same way as you, I think).

It's pretty straight forward to me. But since you're presenting the idea that we took the wrong shots in the first place, I love to see the argument for that. It could be. Anything could be a reason. What makes you think that it's a matter of taking the wrong shots, versus simply not making the ones we did take?

Like I said, I don't think I have a knock down argument here. Not much of one at all, in fact. Just making a little bit of room for an alternative. I don't plan to convince you. But I do wonder why we are so happy with our shooters shooting open shots, while defenses are too.

[KqWIN]

"The interplay between shots taken over time" is what I identified in the last post. This comprises a lot of factors. One simple example, a good drive, or even the threat of one, has an effect on defenses, which make other shots more possible. Which, of course, you well know. However, the way I thought you were using expected value was based on percentages alone--expectations based on past shots, and value based on likeliness to go in from those past successes. But, as I tried to point out, that analysis of good shots will have a very hard time with the relational parts of an offense. Like any system with complex interactions, taking the measurements as primary, when they are interdependent, will miss the story.

EV is everything, and that includes the interplay between shots taken over time. Ironically, your drive example points perfectly to open three pointers. Obviously when teams are afraid of the drive, they will shift their defense more towards the paint. This will open up shots on the perimeter. Likewise, the threat of perimeter shooting will open up driving lanes towards the basket. In both cases the defense is allowing something to try and take away something. Taking what the defense gives is not a bad thing.

There's also the direct actions and events after a shot attempt. The probability of an offensive rebound, fast break the other way, two for one opportunity, increasing variance, lowering variance, preventing turnovers. All of this is EV, because EV is just your chances of winning.

These are all things to consider, but the simple fact that it's complex does not mean we should just ignore it. I've consistently been vocal about the value of taking open shots and staying aggressive on offense. Passing up shots is one of the most damaging things a player can do, especially on a team with a lack of firepower like the Jazz. The reasoning for this is just what you said. These complex interactions are interdependent. If you don't agree with me, tell me why. What complexities about taking wide open shots actually leads us to losing.

To use an analogy, there can be different explanations for something as simple as sitting down. Person 1 could explain it in terms of the positions of biological terms (skin, bones, blood, muscles, etc...) explaining their positions throughout the movement. Person 2 could explain it in terms of the positions of all the atoms involved in the scenario. Person 3 could do it in terms of human actions (instead of motions), where biological elements are secondary in the explanation. It is tempting to say it is all semantic here, but surely sitting down is not simply the changing locations of skin, bones, muscle, etc... The appropriate terms are about human activity. Likewise, when describing something like a game, the different explanations will have different commitments (more than just semantics), and different explanatory value.

I find this analogy to be very weak because you can pull this card about any argument, about anything, at any time. It adds nothing to the conversation. I get it. Basketball is complex. It can be described in evaluated in many different ways and on many different levels. Tell me why the way I'm analyzing the game is wrong or unconvincing. Tell me what perspective you're seeing it from or what's more appropriate. This is what conversation and discussions are about.

We need to pin down what we mean by subjective. Most accounts I have seen take subjectivity to be something essentially personal, unsharable. Pains, itches, etc... But the way I think you are taking subjective (correct me if I'm wrong) is to be anything that is not extensionally defined. In this case, not defined by actual shot events that have been measured on the basketball floor in the past. But that's not a very useful account of subjectivity. I mean , I don't think it is a subjective sentence to say "Curry is a better shooter than Crowder" even if I don't resort to % to explain it. A lot of mathematical propositions, for example, aren't measurable in the extensional sense being used here, yet that are far from being subjective propositions.

Subjective to me is very simple. It means that you're basing your opinions a personal feeling, taste, or hunch etc. The only counter points you've both brought up are subject to one's own subjectivity. Unless I'm missing something, these are the two main things you keep citing. 1) The shots aren't good because HOU wants us to take them. 2) Good shots ought to reflect a player's strengths. I think both are up to one's own personal opinion and feeling. I personally disagree with both because both points can be in opposition with my first point about EV. The shot the defense wants you to take can also be the shot that gives you the best chance at winning. Likewise, a player may have to do something that is not his best strength because it helps the team the most. We saw this all the time with this current Jazz.

You don't have to have a detailed outline of how you came to your conclusion, but a little reasoning would be nice. Saying that Curry is a better shooter than Crowder has to be based on something. Tell me what that something is. Imagine if I responded to that Curry statement with "there are lots of ways to describe shooting".

To your own admission, you don't really have a knock down argument. So why are you in opposition to actual arguments. Why don't you think that the offensive failure is due to shooting variance? It's gotta be a hunch right?

I think I can define good shots in terms of strong shooters, and leave strength undefined. That can be a problem, but since it is already agreed upon, it's unnecessary. The way our judgments about strengths are formed need not factor in here, all we need is somewhat close agreement that a player is a strong or weak shooter. If we disagree about the strengths of shooters, though, then yes, this will be a problem.

This is a disagreement, especially when we talk about shooting in relative turns. There's a reason why teams shoot so many more 3's in todays game. The value of three pointing shooting has been contested and now we're having a three point explosion. Three point shooting will continue to be a point of discussion as the league pushes the limits on how many three pointers is a healthy amount. There will be a tipping point where teams are shooting too many threes, or too many players are shooting three's. You seem to believe that we've already crossed it.

[Luigi]

EV is everything, and that includes the interplay between shots taken over time. Ironically, your drive example points perfectly to open three pointers. Obviously when teams are afraid of the drive, they will shift their defense more towards the paint. This will open up shots on the perimeter. Likewise, the threat of perimeter shooting will open up driving lanes towards the basket. In both cases the defense is allowing something to try and take away something. Taking what the defense gives is not a bad thing.

There's also the direct actions and events after a shot attempt. The probability of an offensive rebound, fast break the other way, two for one opportunity, increasing variance, lowering variance, preventing turnovers. All of this is EV, because EV is just your chances of winning.

These are all things to consider, but the simple fact that it's complex does not mean we should just ignore it. I've consistently been vocal about the value of taking open shots and staying aggressive on offense. Passing up shots is one of the most damaging things a player can do, especially on a team with a lack of firepower like the Jazz. The reasoning for this is just what you said. These complex interactions are interdependent. If you don't agree with me, tell me why. What complexities about taking wide open shots actually leads us to losing

Sorry, but I think you missed my distinction between EV defined as a %, and the goodness of a shot. It is still unclear to me if you think EV is exhausted by percentages or not. Is a shot good because it opens up other shots on the perimeter, or because it has a certain % from that spot in the floor? Those are two different things, and the distinction is the heart of my criticism.

I find this analogy to be very weak because you can pull this card about any argument, about anything, at any time. It adds nothing to the conversation. I get it. Basketball is complex. It can be described in evaluated in many different ways and on many different levels. Tell me why the way I'm analyzing the game is wrong or unconvincing. Tell me what perspective you're seeing it from or what's more appropriate. This is what conversation and discussions are about.

I think you've missed the main distinction I made here. You asked for an elementary explanation, so I gave one. But I have already given you very specific reasons why the percentage alone approach to EV is problematic.

Subjective to me is very simple. It means that you're basing your opinions a personal feeling, taste, or hunch etc. The only counter points you've both brought up are subject to one's own subjectivity. Unless I'm missing something, these are the two main things you keep citing. 1) The shots aren't good because HOU wants us to take them. 2) Good shots ought to reflect a player's strengths. I think both are up to one's own personal opinion and feeling. I personally disagree with both because both points can be in opposition with my first point about EV. The shot the defense wants you to take can also be the shot that gives you the best chance at winning. Likewise, a player may have to do something that is not his best strength because it helps the team the most. We saw this all the time with this current Jazz.

I haven't made any arguments that go from personal feeling, taste, or hunch. I have pointed out a specific problem about % for determining which shots are good, which is the main point. 1) is not my specific inference, it is a misreading. I have observed that the shots are open, and it seems like there is a reason for it. But I haven't made the causal claim, which is what 1) says. 2) is used to distinguish two different senses of 'good' when it comes to shots, it is necessary background. I think you are defining subjectivity to be anything not measured as a percentage from past shots. I also think you are making a spurious fact/opinion distinction here.

You don't have to have a detailed outline of how you came to your conclusion, but a little reasoning would be nice. Saying that Curry is a better shooter than Crowder has to be based on something. Tell me what that something is. Imagine if I responded to that Curry statement with "there are lots of ways to describe shooting".

To your own admission, you don't really have a knock down argument. So why are you in opposition to actual arguments. Why don't you think that the offensive failure is due to shooting variance? It's gotta be a hunch right?

If you were to react to the Curry statement that way, then that would be necessary to continue the conversation. But I don't think you do. This was a point about subjectivity. Perhaps I shouldn't have used a basketball statement to establish that there are non-subjective facts that aren't necessarily based on percentages. Certain mathematical theorems are not based on percentages from past events, but are surely not subjective. The purpose here was to show you that just because I am not referencing shot %s, it doesn't mean I am in subjective space.

This is a disagreement, especially when we talk about shooting in relative turns.

I really doubt you and I have a different list of strong and weak shooters on the Jazz.

--------------

Anyway, I think we can agree that our 3 point shooting for the series was bad, under a variety of different senses of bad. And that missing open 3s is disappointing.

[KqWIN]

Sorry, but I think you missed my distinction between EV defined as a %, and the goodness of a shot. It is still unclear to me if you think EV is exhausted by percentages or not. Is a shot good because it opens up other shots on the perimeter, or because it has a certain % from that spot in the floor? Those are two different things, and the distinction is the heart of my criticism.

EV is exactly what I said it was. It's everything. If it helps you win, it adds EV. If it makes you lose, it lowers EV. I explicitly said that there is more to EV is more than percentages. I also explicitly said that those two different things are EV. I don't know why it is unclear. I think you're just arguing to argue at this point. EV includes anything that effects the outcome of a game. That is the answer, if that is unclear, I don't know how to make it more clear.

I think you've missed the main distinction I made here. You asked for an elementary explanation, so I gave one. But I have already given you very specific reasons why the percentage alone approach to EV is problematic.

You didn't. I'm still waiting on specific reasons. If you have a problem with using percentages, tell me why. You've told me that percentages lack context. What context is it missing? Is there something about the complexity of the game that is being ignored when I cite percentages. I would love to hear what complexities are at odds with the notion that our shooting performance on wide open three's is the primary contributing factor to our poor defense. Telling me that there could be complexities does absolutely nothing.

I haven't made any arguments that go from personal feeling, taste, or hunch. I have pointed out a specific problem about % for determining which shots are good, which is the main point. 1) is not my specific inference, it is a misreading. I have observed that the shots are open, and it seems like there is a reason for it. But I haven't made the causal claim, which is what 1) says. 2) is used to distinguish two different senses of 'good' when it comes to shots, it is necessary background. I think you are defining subjectivity to be anything not measured as a percentage from past shots. I also think you are making a spurious fact/opinion distinction here.

You have made an argument against an idea, and proposed an alternative idea admittedly without a strong argument. If I feel something about something without a good reason why, I'd say that comes from a personal feeling. There's no other reason for me to feel that way other than it being a hunch. As with EV, I am defining subjectivity as I defined it. If you have any more doubt or questions about how I define subjectivity, refer to how I defined subjectivity.

If you were to react to the Curry statement that way, then that would be necessary to continue the conversation. But I don't think you do. This was a point about subjectivity. Perhaps I shouldn't have used a basketball statement to establish that there are non-subjective facts that aren't necessarily based on percentages. Certain mathematical theorems are not based on percentages from past events, but are surely not subjective. The purpose here was to show you that just because I am not referencing shot %s, it doesn't mean I am in subjective space.

I really doubt you and I have a different list of strong and weak shooters on the Jazz.

We are having a conversation about whether or not shooting wide open 3's is good. You have pivoted it to a semantics conversation that I do not care for, but that is the discussion I'm interested in. Two camps remember? One that thinks we should take them, one that thinks taking them is losing us the game. I'm done, and I mean it this time. I want to talk about basketball. Cheers.

[Luigi]

Sorry, but I think you missed my distinction between EV defined as a %, and the goodness of a shot. It is still unclear to me if you think EV is exhausted by percentages or not. Is a shot good because it opens up other shots on the perimeter, or because it has a certain % from that spot in the floor? Those are two different things, and the distinction is the heart of my criticism.

EV is exactly what I said it was. It's everything. If it helps you win, it adds EV. If it makes you lose, it lowers EV. I explicitly said that there is more to EV is more than percentages. I also explicitly said that those two different things are EV. I don't know why it is unclear. I think you're just arguing to argue at this point. EV includes anything that effects the outcome of a game. That is the answer, if that is unclear, I don't know how to make it more clear.

I think you've missed the main distinction I made here. You asked for an elementary explanation, so I gave one. But I have already given you very specific reasons why the percentage alone approach to EV is problematic.

You didn't. I'm still waiting on specific reasons. If you have a problem with using percentages, tell me why. You've told me that percentages lack context. What context is it missing? Is there something about the complexity of the game that is being ignored when I cite percentages. I would love to hear what complexities are at odds with the notion that our shooting performance on wide open three's is the primary contributing factor to our poor defense. Telling me that there could be complexities does absolutely nothing.

I haven't made any arguments that go from personal feeling, taste, or hunch. I have pointed out a specific problem about % for determining which shots are good, which is the main point. 1) is not my specific inference, it is a misreading. I have observed that the shots are open, and it seems like there is a reason for it. But I haven't made the causal claim, which is what 1) says. 2) is used to distinguish two different senses of 'good' when it comes to shots, it is necessary background. I think you are defining subjectivity to be anything not measured as a percentage from past shots. I also think you are making a spurious fact/opinion distinction here.

You have made an argument against an idea, and proposed an alternative idea admittedly without a strong argument. If I feel something about something without a good reason why, I'd say that comes from a personal feeling. There's no other reason for me to feel that way other than it being a hunch. As with EV, I am defining subjectivity as I defined it. If you have any more doubt or questions about how I define subjectivity, refer to how I defined subjectivity.

If you were to react to the Curry statement that way, then that would be necessary to continue the conversation. But I don't think you do. This was a point about subjectivity. Perhaps I shouldn't have used a basketball statement to establish that there are non-subjective facts that aren't necessarily based on percentages. Certain mathematical theorems are not based on percentages from past events, but are surely not subjective. The purpose here was to show you that just because I am not referencing shot %s, it doesn't mean I am in subjective space.

I really doubt you and I have a different list of strong and weak shooters on the Jazz.

We are having a conversation about whether or not shooting wide open 3's is good. You have pivoted it to a semantics conversation that I do not care for, but that is the discussion I'm interested in. Two camps remember? One that thinks we should take them, one that thinks taking them is losing us the game. I'm done, and I mean it this time. I want to talk about basketball. Cheers.

This was my specific claim: "if the question is about whether the shot is good for an offense (rather than good in isolation). On your definition, the shot is good because it tends to go in (given by a certain % taken from past instances) more than not shooting (which must mean in comparison to other possible shots, since not shooting at all would mean shot clock violations). But if that's the definition of the goodness of a shot, the contextual element can only be cached out in terms of another percentage (the alternative shot). This leaves out the interplay between shots taken over time, since the goodness of each individual shot is determined entirely by percentages, per your definition. So I think there are other factors to explain, that go beyond extensional definitions that use pure percentages (measurements of past events)."

But I see you have a different view of EV. It is everything... So I guess I misunderstood.