Players who shoot the lowest FG% from 16-24 ft

[sc8581]

Is it fair to compare his style on offense to Prince? I don't think Tay has more range than Smith. Also, Tay preferred taking the long 2's and posting up, and we were fine.

So wrong.

Tay is a very good shooter when given enough time and space to get his shot off. However, anytime Tay wanted to go off the dribble, his effectiveness went down considerably due to his horrible shot mechanics.

I would be comfortable with Tay taking any shot without regard to distance from basket; as long as he was set and had ample space to launch.

With Smith, people just leave him wide open on the perimeter and he still bricks them.

Tay and his Bill Cartwright shot lol

[Q00]

Trouble is the setup the Pistons have with Drummond/Monroe occupying the paint is probably going to make Smith MORE likely to fall into settling for those jumpers, not less.

Are you trying to make me push our win total to below 39?

Damn.

38

The problem with this theory is that while Dre/Monroe will be occupying space in the paint, they will also be occupying defenders in the paint, making it easier for Smith to score inside, not harder.

[Q00]

With Smith, people just leave him wide open on the perimeter and he still bricks them.

[beau]

This will probably surprise people but Jennings percentages from that range are actually crazy good.

48% from the left side and 43% from the right.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1727 ... it-pistons

It really shouldn't surprise anyone. Brandon is actually a really good shooter, its his horrific shot selection that drags everything down.

He KNOWS that though, and as he said in his presser, he will change his game. He doesn't need to do the things he did in the land of venison. He can pick and choose his shots, and pass his ass off.

He really SHOULD average around 10APG here. Its **** lob city as he stated.

Lets not take too much consideration in those stats and assume Brandon is a 'good' shooter.

Thoses shots from the left and the right as the writer is pointing out, count for only 5.5 percent of his total!

I just dont understand why someone would even base that in an argument to support the notion Brandon is a good at making those long twos. In fact, I think he settles for those long twos, becuase he is pathetic at finishing at the rim; theres even a larger sample space there to argue that.

[Pharaoh]

Does anyone think that with Cheeks, Chauncey & a more robust analytical department that Jennings will be made aware of his shooting percentages from certain areas AND how much of his total offensive output comes from each area?

Doesn't seem like a stretch to suggest that he'll be made much more aware of the fact his best shooting percentage comes from area "x" in a given situation.

Same goes for Smith!

It seems every season every team uses advanced stats more & more. Why wouldn't we do the same?

Seems like smart coaching or at least smarter/better use of available info

Sent from my GT-I9300 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[Q00]

This will probably surprise people but Jennings percentages from that range are actually crazy good.

48% from the left side and 43% from the right.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1727 ... it-pistons

It really shouldn't surprise anyone. Brandon is actually a really good shooter, its his horrific shot selection that drags everything down.

He KNOWS that though, and as he said in his presser, he will change his game. He doesn't need to do the things he did in the land of venison. He can pick and choose his shots, and pass his ass off.

He really SHOULD average around 10APG here. Its **** lob city as he stated.

Lets not take too much consideration in those stats and assume Brandon is a 'good' shooter.

Thoses shots from the left and the right as the writer is pointing out, count for only 5.5 percent of his total!

I just dont understand why someone would even base that in an argument to support the notion Brandon is a good at making those long twos. In fact, I think he settles for those long twos, becuase he is pathetic at finishing at the rim; theres even a larger sample space there to argue that.

Because when he has taken them he has made them? What more reason is needed? If its not enough proof based on small sample size, then we'll have to wait and see how it plays out with more attempts from those spots, but there's more evidence right now to suggest he can make that shot, than there is to say he can't.

You are contradicting your points too. First you say he only takes that shot 5% of the time, and then say he settles for those shots. He must not be settling too often if he only does it 5% of the time.

His problems finishing at the rim are well documented. That has nothing to do with his ability to shoot jumpshots though and be considered a 'good' shooter. He might be a bad finisher, bringing his FG% down, but bad finisher doesnt equal bad shooter, in terms of jumpshots. In fact, what that shot chart shows me is simply that he needs to stop taking shots inside and stick to shooting jumpshots from those areas that he excels at. When he shoots the long 2 from the left, right, and center (above the ft line) areas combined, he shoots 45%. When he shoots the long 3 from the left and right sides of the arc combined, he shoots 39% on 3's.

With our frontcourt doing all the scoring inside, he won't need to mess around in the paint anymore taking shots he isn't good at. He can just focus on shooting from those hot-spots, and if he does that I bet his overall % will go way up. It might be a small sample size on just the long 2's, but when you add in those long 3's from the left/right, altogether they account for 33% of his attempts last year. If a guard can shoot 45% on jumpshots from 2 and almost 40% on 3's, he can definitely shoot. He just needs to learn his strengths/weaknesses better, like all young players, and stick to his strengths more than weaknesses. In Milwaukee they had him doing the exact opposite, which was more poor coaching/development on their part than it was Jennings fault.

[Clarity]

Who didnt know Josh Smith couldnt hit a shot outside of 5 feet?

If he takes 280 jumpers this year we are in deep trouble.

[Q00]

Who didnt know Josh Smith couldnt hit a shot outside of 5 feet?

If he takes 280 jumpers this year we are in deep trouble.

The thing about Smith and those long 2's that doesn't get mentioned is that he's way better at the long 2 than the midrange 10-16 ft shot. So that explains why he takes those more and rightfully so. He might not be good at them, only making 33%, but that's still much better than the 20% he shoots from the midrange. He's also better at the long 2 than the 3 (30%). So while you don't want him taking any of those shots a lot, you do need him taking some just to keep the defense. If the long 2 is his best shot, then that's the one he should keep taking when it calls for him to take a jumpshot.

[Clarity]

The thing about Smith and those long 2's that doesn't get mentioned is that he's way better at the long 2 than the midrange 10-16 ft shot. So that explains why he takes those more and rightfully so. He might not be good at them, only making 33%, but that's still much better than the 20% he shoots from the midrange. He's also better at the long 2 than the 3 (30%). So while you don't want him taking any of those shots a lot, you do need him taking some just to keep the defense. If the long 2 is his best shot, then that's the one he should keep taking when it calls for him to take a jumpshot.

I get your point but we dont want him taking anything outside of that 5 or 6 foot area. He killed the Hawks doing that. Id rather he used his athleticism to attack the rim & either find a shot for him or for Drummond or just dump it down to Monroe to get a higher % attempt.

[beau]

It really shouldn't surprise anyone. Brandon is actually a really good shooter, its his horrific shot selection that drags everything down.

He KNOWS that though, and as he said in his presser, he will change his game. He doesn't need to do the things he did in the land of venison. He can pick and choose his shots, and pass his ass off.

He really SHOULD average around 10APG here. Its **** lob city as he stated.

Lets not take too much consideration in those stats and assume Brandon is a 'good' shooter.

Thoses shots from the left and the right as the writer is pointing out, count for only 5.5 percent of his total!

I just dont understand why someone would even base that in an argument to support the notion Brandon is a good at making those long twos. In fact, I think he settles for those long twos, becuase he is pathetic at finishing at the rim; theres even a larger sample space there to argue that.

Because when he has taken them he has made them? What more reason is needed? If its not enough proof based on small sample size, then we'll have to wait and see how it plays out with more attempts from those spots, but there's more evidence right now to suggest he can make that shot, than there is to say he can't.

You are contradicting your points too. First you say he only takes that shot 5% of the time, and then say he settles for those shots. He must not be settling too often if he only does it 5% of the time.

His problems finishing at the rim are well documented. That has nothing to do with his ability to shoot jumpshots though and be considered a 'good' shooter. He might be a bad finisher, bringing his FG% down, but bad finisher doesnt equal bad shooter, in terms of jumpshots. In fact, what that shot chart shows me is simply that he needs to stop taking shots inside and stick to shooting jumpshots from those areas that he excels at. When he shoots the long 2 from the left, right, and center (above the ft line) areas combined, he shoots 45%. When he shoots the long 3 from the left and right sides of the arc combined, he shoots 39% on 3's.

With our frontcourt doing all the scoring inside, he won't need to mess around in the paint anymore taking shots he isn't good at. He can just focus on shooting from those hot-spots, and if he does that I bet his overall % will go way up. It might be a small sample size on just the long 2's, but when you add in those long 3's from the left/right, altogether they account for 33% of his attempts last year. If a guard can shoot 45% on jumpshots from 2 and almost 40% on 3's, he can definitely shoot. He just needs to learn his strengths/weaknesses better, like all young players, and stick to his strengths more than weaknesses. In Milwaukee they had him doing the exact opposite, which was more poor coaching/development on their part than it was Jennings fault.

Nah... I didnt contradict myself.

Add up all the 16-24 ft jump shots, not including 3s, this dude takes and find the percentage. That is what I was referring to as 'long twos' in my 3rd paragraph. He shoots well below the 43 percent or 47 percent from the left or right as the writer is referring to.

I could of wrote an article saying how horrible Jennings is on 'long two's' by only focusing on the areas where he shot 13/37 and 17/56 in that range. Yeah that is 32.2 percent with a little bit more sample size. Take it for what its worth.

My point, why focus on something that small? Were talking about 16-24 ft shots right? Add them all up and stop playing games with numbers anyone can see through. Once you add those up, you can see Jennings is a pretty horrible shooter in that range. Hell, Ill do it for you.... its 38.4 percent. with a total of 198 shots in the sample size.

Whats shocking is, how close that percentage is to his 3 point percentage of 37.5. If anything, he should avoid shooting a 16-24 foot jump shot, unless it is a clear 3 pointer. HIs effectiveness would increase dramatically.

Thats what I take from those stats and shot chart, and I dont play number games.

[pistontr]

There are worse stats

Players who shoot the lowest FG% from 8-16ft

http://stats.nba.com/leaguePlayerShots. ... ft3*GE*140


Players who shoot the lowest FG% from less 8 ft
http://stats.nba.com/leaguePlayerShots. ... ft3*GE*140

[Q00]

Nah... I didnt contradict myself.

Add up all the 16-24 ft jump shots, not including 3s, this dude takes and find the percentage. That is what I was referring to as 'long twos' in my 3rd paragraph. He shoots well below the 43 percent or 47 percent from the left or right as the writer is referring to.

I could of wrote an article saying how horrible Jennings is on 'long two's' by only focusing on the areas where he shot 13/37 and 17/56 in that range. Yeah that is 32.2 percent with a little bit more sample size. Take it for what its worth.

My point, why focus on something that small? Were talking about 16-24 ft shots right? Add them all up and stop playing games with numbers anyone can see through. Once you add those up, you can see Jennings is a pretty horrible shooter in that range. Hell, Ill do it for you.... its 38.4 percent. with a total of 198 shots in the sample size.

Whats shocking is, how close that percentage is to his 3 point percentage of 37.5. If anything, he should avoid shooting a 16-24 foot jump shot, unless it is a clear 3 pointer. HIs effectiveness would increase dramatically.

Thats what I take from those stats and shot chart, and I dont play number games.

I don't know what you are arguing about, because no one has claimed he is a good 16-24 ft shooter from everywhere in that range. All that was said was he is good from certain spots in that range, and the percentages prove it. You may think those percentages are too small of a sample size, but they are actually right in line with what other top scorers attempt from that range.

Take a look at Durants shot chart



He only shoots 39% or lower in four of the five main areas from that range. He's only great from 1 spot, where he shoots 58% on 76 FGA. Those 76 attempts only account for 5% of his total FGA's on the season- just like you said of Jennings from his hotspots in that range. So is Durant not a good shooter from 16-24 either, because he only shoots great from 1 spot in that range and its too small of a sample size?

Its not as simple as just looking at the range as one number on the whole and concluding a player is or isn't a good shooter from that range. You have to examine further behind the number to see where he is good/bad, because he doesn't have to shoot that shot from every spot. So if you can identify which spots he excels at, then you know which spots to position him at that gives you the best chance of making them. That is the whole point. No player shoots great from every spot.

If you just say Durant is a great shooter period from 16-24 because he shoots 43% overall, and think you can just spot him up above the FT line all day and he will make them at that rate, you will lose, because he is poor from that spot. You have to know which spots within each range that a player excels at. You can't just judge by the range as a whole. Its not number games, its just identifying specific strengths/weaknesses and not generalizing it.

[beau]

Nah... I didnt contradict myself.

Add up all the 16-24 ft jump shots, not including 3s, this dude takes and find the percentage. That is what I was referring to as 'long twos' in my 3rd paragraph. He shoots well below the 43 percent or 47 percent from the left or right as the writer is referring to.

I could of wrote an article saying how horrible Jennings is on 'long two's' by only focusing on the areas where he shot 13/37 and 17/56 in that range. Yeah that is 32.2 percent with a little bit more sample size. Take it for what its worth.

My point, why focus on something that small? Were talking about 16-24 ft shots right? Add them all up and stop playing games with numbers anyone can see through. Once you add those up, you can see Jennings is a pretty horrible shooter in that range. Hell, Ill do it for you.... its 38.4 percent. with a total of 198 shots in the sample size.

Whats shocking is, how close that percentage is to his 3 point percentage of 37.5. If anything, he should avoid shooting a 16-24 foot jump shot, unless it is a clear 3 pointer. HIs effectiveness would increase dramatically.

Thats what I take from those stats and shot chart, and I dont play number games.

I don't know what you are arguing about, because no one has claimed he is a good 16-24 ft shooter from everywhere in that range. All that was said was he is good from certain spots in that range, and the percentages prove it. You may think those percentages are too small of a sample size, but they are actually right in line with what other top scorers attempt from that range.

Take a look at Durants shot chart



He only shoots 39% or lower in four of the five main areas from that range. He's only great from 1 spot, where he shoots 58% on 76 FGA. Those 76 attempts only account for 5% of his total FGA's on the season- just like you said of Jennings from his hotspots in that range. So is Durant not a good shooter from 16-24 either, because he only shoots great from 1 spot in that range and its too small of a sample size?

Its not as simple as just looking at the range as one number on the whole and concluding a player is or isn't a good shooter from that range. You have to examine further behind the number to see where he is good/bad, because he doesn't have to shoot that shot from every spot. So if you can identify which spots he excels at, then you know which spots to position him at that gives you the best chance of making them. That is the whole point. No player shoots great from every spot.

If you just say Durant is a great shooter period from 16-24 because he shoots 43% overall, and think you can just spot him up above the FT line all day and he will make them at that rate, you will lose, because he is poor from that spot. You have to know which spots within each range that a player excels at. You can't just judge by the range as a whole. Its not number games, its just identifying specific strengths/weaknesses and not generalizing it.

I like what you are trying to with Durant. I do.... but since we should be fair why are comparing just 1 area within that range to two areas in jennings shot chart? still not enough evidence.

There is no argument here. I am saying, I will not accept that a total of 5.5 percent of his shots in two areas is enough to build a strategic plan on using him next season. ITS NOT ENOUGH for me.


Lets say Jennings goes 10/30 combined from both of those areas the first quarter of next season? are you going to dispose of your plan?

Lets say he goes 1/15 in an area, but goes 10/10 in another? will you change your plan? sorry, but the data suggests, too much variance with about 2.75 percent of his shots in each of those areas.

You could easily show me Jennings truly is a good shooter from those areas, by providing me shot charts from his first four seasons. If he consistently shoots in the high 40's, I will change my mind immediately. Anyone know how to get that data....

[Ayt]

NBA.com has year by year stats, but they don't have career stats.

Here is Jennnings' shot chart from the 2011-12 season.

http://stats.nba.com/playerShotchart.ht ... on=2011-12

And the previous season.

http://stats.nba.com/playerShotchart.ht ... on=2010-11

[beau]

NBA.com has year by year stats, but they don't have career stats.

Here is Jennnings' shot chart from the 2011-12 season.

http://stats.nba.com/playerShotchart.ht ... on=2011-12

And the previous season.

http://stats.nba.com/playerShotchart.ht ... on=2010-11

Thanks Ayt!

Q00, it look like you better hold off on that plan of yours to utilize him in those corner areas based upon his shot charts from the last THREE seasons.

Its just mind boggling the author of this article utilized such a small sample to say Brandon was 'good' at that shot. Its simply not true when you compare his last 3 seasons. Doesn't make much sense.

You could even go back another year, and his combined percentage for those two areas is again under 40 percent....

[sc8581]

37% over the last 3 years is pretty decent, it would help if we had more info like were they open shots, did he have a hand in his face in a lot of these etc... It's not as though he had much offensive talent surrounding him in Milwaukee so I doubt the majority of them were uncontested.

[beau]

37% over the last 3 years is pretty decent, it would help if we had more info like were they open shots, did he have a hand in his face in a lot of these etc... It's not as though he had much offensive talent surrounding him in Milwaukee so I doubt the majority of them were uncontested.

You did the math and the conclusion is 37 percent on the long corner twos?

Sorry that is not a good shooter by any stretch of the imagination. Maybe the defense had something to do with it. Maybe being around other good players in Monroe, Drummond, and Smith, would allow his efficiency to go up. There are too many maybes....

The only sure thing is this:

Brandon is a 40 percent shooter for his career; not very good.

[sc8581]

37% over the last 3 years is pretty decent, it would help if we had more info like were they open shots, did he have a hand in his face in a lot of these etc... It's not as though he had much offensive talent surrounding him in Milwaukee so I doubt the majority of them were uncontested.

You did the math and the conclusion is 37 percent on the long corner twos?

Sorry that is not a good shooter by any stretch of the imagination. Maybe the defense had something to do with it. Maybe being around other good players in Monroe, Drummond, and Smith, would allow his efficiency to go up. There are too many maybes....

The only sure thing is this:

Brandon is a 40 percent shooter for his career; not very good.

My bad, looking at the chart I thought those numbers were corner 3's lmao