Doctor MJ wrote:drza wrote:I just don't agree with your efficiency assertions when it comes to 3s. A player that takes 10 3s and makes 4 of them just isn't the same as a player that takes 10 2s and makes 6 of them. Maybe consistency plays a part in it for me, because on average over the long haul the volume of points will be equal. But over the course of any one game I'm building my game plan as a coach much more around maximizing the latter than the former. Again, 3-point shooting has it's place and it's value. I respect that. But when it becomes such a large part in what we're calling efficiency, and efficiency becomes the standard by which all offense is judged, then the 3-pointer is getting too much credit. It's not THAT awesome.
And frankly for any of us, but especially me, you, ElGee or DavidStern to make any kind of accusation about "making this too complicated" or "grasping at straws" because we aren't willing to except the current status quo thought process as gospel is EXTREME stone-throwing from a glass house. That's what we do: we think critically and analyze, to the nth degree. Just because this time we aren't on the same side of the agreement doesn't mean that this is a time that you get to stand on a soap box for Occam's razor. ESPECIALLY when Occam's razor wouldn't have Reggie anywhere near this spot in the vote.
drza, I like you. I think you bring strong intellectual firepower to the boards and I welcome that. But when you assert 3 != 3 this is a problem.
Now look, I'm all for analysis to the nth degree that would give a quantitative estimate for things like this, and if that happened I would expect that a 3-pointer wouldn't be worth exactly 3 points (though a 2-pointer wouldn't be worth exactly 2 points either). However, the issue is incredibly complicated and I don't see how there's any basis for saying how the result would go, let alone that it would go in the direction you want to the extent that we'd say TS% becomes a seriously flawed stat.
For you to bring it up like it's a big deal as you ponder why you don't personally buy the Miller argument seems to me to be the hand waving of the intellectual which I'll admit that I have done in my life. One becomes so accustomed to using your logical/argumentative prowess in an academic setting that one starts using such techniques to bolster pre-rational opinions.
So when I say you're making things too complicated, maybe that's not quite right. Where I object is in you bringing in an additional layer of implied depth as part of you opinion without giving enough actual meat to justify the addition.
Condescend much? I guess I like you and think you're intelligent too. And you're welcome to keep posting too, for whatever that's worth.
But, I never said 3 != 3. All I can say is re-read my last exchange with ElGee. If all you get out of what I wrote is that 3!= 3, I guess we're just doomed to not agree.
But I guess no one can get them all right...