2020 NBA Draft

[Feel_the_Heat15]

Tre went from shooting 26% on 2.9 attempts from 3 last year to 36% on 3.8 attempts this year, that's a monstrous improvement, I'm not sure at all at this point that Theo is gonna be a better shooter. Tre's also a better FT shooter by a decent margin.

Maxey will be a better shooter/scorer that's pretty obvious to me, but Tre is better at literally everything else...obviously scoring is a huge part of it but Maxey projects more as a scoring guard off the bench but Tre can legitimately run offense and is one of the best point of attack defending guards to come out in a long time

That's misleading, he's attempting less 3s per field goal attempt this season than he did last season. College 3-point percentages do not strongly predict what a player may shoot from 3-point range in the NBA. His FT% is down from last season. You're downplaying just how much more important it is for a player to be a good shooter than a facilitator that can defend in today's NBA, especially a PG. I don't really have one guard over the other. If you want to play it safe, draft Tre. I don't think any of them are really 1st round material anyways.

Do you see your original point on the subject was different still from your two most recent claims of "my point is".

What is your point?

These are facts.

Tre Jones is shooting more threes this year.
Tre Jones is making threes at a higher percentage this year.
Tre Jones is making more total three point shots this year.
Tre Jones three point percentage is down.

None of this is arguing. Those are laid out facts.

What are you being argumentative about? Like I've clearly laid out you have changed your "point" multiple times.

1.Please show me where I said that, "three point rate is a more accurate way to judge future NBA three point shooting than increase in attempts and percentage".

2.Volume, rate and frequency are all interchangeable words which you should've known from the context of this conversation. I'm not changing my initial argument at all.

3.All of your facts aren't things I disagreed with.

Here's another fact for you. You tried to create a straw man and failed.

[Jamaaliver]

Read on Twitter

[karkinos]

2.Volume, rate and frequency are all interchangeable words which you should've known from the context of this conversation. I'm not changing my initial argument at all.

language works because it is set on the premise of common definitions of words used
volume, rate, and frequency are not the same because tre jones literally cannot be shooting at a lower volume or rate.

[Feel_the_Heat15]

2.Volume, rate and frequency are all interchangeable words which you should've known from the context of this conversation. I'm not changing my initial argument at all.

language works because it is set on the premise of common definitions of words used
volume, rate, and frequency are not the same because tre jones literally cannot be shooting at a lower volume or rate.

Once again, have you never heard of a volume shooter? How about a tweener? Where are those words in the English dictionary? And you're still rambling about my use of certain words instead of trying to form a proper argument. We get it already, you don't know what volume or frequency or whatever is. My point is that Tre Jones is attempting 3s at a lower rate so you shouldn't interpret his increase in 3PA as him becoming more willing to shoot 3s. It's obvious that you don't have a counterargument and that's why you just want to argue semantics. If you do have a counterargument then give me one instead of giving me a terrible lesson on grammar.

[karkinos]

2.Volume, rate and frequency are all interchangeable words which you should've known from the context of this conversation. I'm not changing my initial argument at all.

language works because it is set on the premise of common definitions of words used
volume, rate, and frequency are not the same because tre jones literally cannot be shooting at a lower volume or rate.

Once again, have you never heard of a volume shooter? How about a tweener? Where are those words in the English dictionary? And you're still rambling about my use of certain words instead of trying to form a proper argument. We get it already, you don't know what volume or frequency or whatever is. My point is that Tre Jones is attempting 3s at a lower rate so you shouldn't interpret his increase in 3PA as him becoming more willing to shoot 3s. It's obvious that you don't have a counterargument and that's why you just want to argue semantics. If you do have a counterargument then give me one instead of giving me a terrible lesson on grammar.

How is a 2% drop in proportion supporting your position? 2% change does not even equate to a single shot attempt.

The fact that he is taking more shots per game makes him a more willing shooter by default. In the context of the game, he is not only taking more shots, he also happens to be taking more 3s. It just so happens that the proportion is relatively similar to last year but the proportion itself is of no significant difference. He could be a more willing shooter without taking more 3s per game, but because he is taking more 3s per game, people view him as willing and confident in his 3pt shot, which makes sense since he is hitting them at a much better percentage.

Volume shooters has a shared understanding by most people. Just because it isn't in the dictionary doesn't mean there isn't a common public interpretation.

Your whole position and its controversy largely revolves around how people are interpreting your words, which is why improving your communication is essential to move forward.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[clyde21]

Fee The Heat you're getting smashed, drop it, you've hijacked this thread with your garbage when u should've just said u were wrong from the beginning like a man...stfu already
Ease up bro. - Ruz

[Feel_the_Heat15]

language works because it is set on the premise of common definitions of words used
volume, rate, and frequency are not the same because tre jones literally cannot be shooting at a lower volume or rate.

Once again, have you never heard of a volume shooter? How about a tweener? Where are those words in the English dictionary? And you're still rambling about my use of certain words instead of trying to form a proper argument. We get it already, you don't know what volume or frequency or whatever is. My point is that Tre Jones is attempting 3s at a lower rate so you shouldn't interpret his increase in 3PA as him becoming more willing to shoot 3s. It's obvious that you don't have a counterargument and that's why you just want to argue semantics. If you do have a counterargument then give me one instead of giving me a terrible lesson on grammar.

How is a 2% drop in proportion supporting your position? 2% change does not even equate to a single shot attempt.

The fact that he is taking more shots per game makes him a more willing shooter by default. In the context of the game, he is not only taking more shots, he also happens to be taking more 3s. It just so happens that the proportion is relatively similar to last year but the proportion itself is of no significant difference. He could be a more willing shooter without taking more 3s per game, but because he is taking more 3s per game, people view him as willing and confident in his 3pt shot, which makes sense since he is hitting them at a much better percentage.

Volume shooters has a shared understanding by most people. Just because it isn't in the dictionary doesn't mean there isn't a common public interpretation.

Your whole position and its controversy largely revolves around how people are interpreting your words, which is why improving your communication is essential to move forward.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

Based on your reasoning, if a player attempts 10 shots a game and 5 of that player's shots were threes but in his latest season he averages 25 shots a game and 8 of those shots are threes he's a more willing three point shooter. This isn't even how all this works. "The proportion itself is of no significant difference," um yes it is. Can't you conclude based off 3-point rate that it's more likely that the average distance of Tre's shot attempts have decreased than increased this season compared to last season?

A 2% drop in proportion helps my argument because it's shows that he's increased the % of his shots that are 2-pointers. Let's try doing the "opposite". If Tre's 3-point rate increased compared to his last season, but the number of 3s he takes a game are down(by a 3-point attempt), are you going to say that he's even less of a 3-point shooter?

By the way,

volume, rate, and frequency are not the same because tre jones literally cannot be shooting at a lower volume or rate

The NBA's definition of 3P FG frequency.

"The percentage of opponent field goal attempts of the specified criteria that are 3 point attempts"

Well, it looks like you were wrong. Anything you want to say to that? Just because you don't understand a word within the context of a discussion doesn't mean it's being misused.

[karkinos]

Based on your reasoning, if a player attempts 10 shots a game and 5 of that player's shots were threes but in his latest season he averages 25 shots a game and 8 of those shots are threes he's a more willing three point shooter.

yes this is correct. this is how most people would interpret willingness
1. willingness to shoot more regardless of the type of shot
2. willingness to shoot more of a specific type of shot per game or per 40 or per 48 minutes
see the denominator here is PER GAME.

This isn't even how all this works. "The proportion itself is of no significant difference," um yes it is.

no, it is not
2% of 12 or 13 fg attempts per game is less than 1 shot. you cannot make any conclusions of "reluctance" based on that. you have no surveys to support that conclusion and quite frankly you have no historical trends to support your hypothesis either.

Can't you conclude based off 3-point rate that it's more likely that the average distance of Tre's shot attempts have decreased than increased this season compared to last season?

no because the difference in the percentage is worth less than 1 shot per game so it wouldn't translate to an in game change. if you took season stats you would be more likely to find that he shot maybe a few dozen less three pointers per total field goals attempted over the course of the season, but it would not reflect a reluctance to shoot within the course of a single game.

A 2% drop in proportion helps my argument because it's shows that he's increased the % of his shots that are 2-pointers.

by less than an actual shot per game...you can't shoot a quarter of a shot. it is meaningless within the context of a 40 or 48 minute game.

Let's try doing the "opposite". If Tre's 3-point rate increased compared to his last season, but the number of 3s he takes a game are down(by a 3-point attempt), are you going to say that he's even less of a 3-point shooter?

i would judge him by the quantity of 3s he takes per game, so yes. and i think most people would arrive at the same conclusion.

By the way,

volume, rate, and frequency are not the same because tre jones literally cannot be shooting at a lower volume or rate


The NBA's definition of 3P FG frequency.

"The percentage of opponent field goal attempts of the specified criteria that are 3 point attempts"

Well, it looks like you were wrong. Anything you want to say to that? Just because you don't understand a word within the context of a discussion doesn't mean it's being misused

well, no, i'm not wrong.
again, you're not reading carefully.
frequency is the wording you should have used from the beginning
frequency still is not the rate nor the volume
i specifically omitted frequency when i said he cannot literally be shooting at a lower volume or rate.

you really need to read more carefully.

it has nothing to do with me not understanding the context. everyone understands what you're trying to say. but the way you're trying to derive some sort of meaning out of it is kind of ridiculous.

[Jamaaliver]

Read on Twitter

[Feel_the_Heat15]

Based on your reasoning, if a player attempts 10 shots a game and 5 of that player's shots were threes but in his latest season he averages 25 shots a game and 8 of those shots are threes he's a more willing three point shooter.

yes this is correct. this is how most people would interpret willingness
1. willingness to shoot more regardless of the type of shot
2. willingness to shoot more of a specific type of shot per game or per 40 or per 48 minutes
see the denominator here is PER GAME.

This isn't even how all this works. "The proportion itself is of no significant difference," um yes it is.

no, it is not
2% of 12 or 13 fg attempts per game is less than 1 shot. you cannot make any conclusions of "reluctance" based on that. you have no surveys to support that conclusion and quite frankly you have no historical trends to support your hypothesis either.

Can't you conclude based off 3-point rate that it's more likely that the average distance of Tre's shot attempts have decreased than increased this season compared to last season?

no because the difference in the percentage is worth less than 1 shot per game so it wouldn't translate to an in game change. if you took season stats you would be more likely to find that he shot maybe a few dozen less three pointers per total field goals attempted over the course of the season, but it would not reflect a reluctance to shoot within the course of a single game.

A 2% drop in proportion helps my argument because it's shows that he's increased the % of his shots that are 2-pointers.

by less than an actual shot per game...you can't shoot a quarter of a shot. it is meaningless within the context of a 40 or 48 minute game.

Let's try doing the "opposite". If Tre's 3-point rate increased compared to his last season, but the number of 3s he takes a game are down(by a 3-point attempt), are you going to say that he's even less of a 3-point shooter?

i would judge him by the quantity of 3s he takes per game, so yes. and i think most people would arrive at the same conclusion.

By the way,

volume, rate, and frequency are not the same because tre jones literally cannot be shooting at a lower volume or rate


The NBA's definition of 3P FG frequency.

"The percentage of opponent field goal attempts of the specified criteria that are 3 point attempts"

Well, it looks like you were wrong. Anything you want to say to that? Just because you don't understand a word within the context of a discussion doesn't mean it's being misused

well, no, i'm not wrong.
again, you're not reading carefully.
frequency is the wording you should have used from the beginning
frequency still is not the rate nor the volume
i specifically omitted frequency when i said he cannot literally be shooting at a lower volume or rate.

you really need to read more carefully.

it has nothing to do with me not understanding the context. everyone understands what you're trying to say. but the way you're trying to derive some sort of meaning out of it is kind of ridiculous.

"frequency still is not the rate nor the volume"

Wow, thanks for making my argument for me. I literally just gave you the definition for frequency and you still will not admit that frequency and rate are interchangeable terms in basketball. This is what I'm dealing with here.

[remi_222]

Maledon's last 2 games :

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

[Marcus]

this conversation being had about Tre Jones is going nowhere. How bout we put a pin in it until he's in the league shooting threes.

[clyde21]

Maledon's last 2 games :

Spoiler:

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

i don't know if I see it in this guy, not very sudden or quick, he's passable as a lead guard but nothing special, he has good size but I don't really see a plus defender on the point of attack yet, not really a huge threat in transition...i dunno

i think if this guy's name was Joe Smith and played for Seton Hall would he be getting 1st round talk at this point?

[Duke4life831]

What's peoples thoughts on Markus Howard? Tiny guard that is an explosive scorer, pretty much the Carsen Edwards of this year's class but a more consistent shooter. Does a team take a flyer on him late in the 1st or does he fall to the 2nd round because his size and lack of PG skills?

[No-Man]

What's peoples thoughts on Markus Howard? Tiny guard that is an explosive scorer, pretty much the Carsen Edwards of this year's class but a more consistent shooter. Does a team take a flyer on him late in the 1st or does he fall to the 2nd round because his size and lack of PG skills?

Nowhere near as good as Edwards to me, who is built like a truck and is much more explosive

I think Howard is a late 2nd round type at best, I'd be fine taking him there, def a 2-way candidate, more than that nah

He is 5-11 and thin, has very little play-making ability (turns it over a ton whenever he tries)

[Ruzious]

Yeah, it's the slight build that puts Howard on a tier below Edwards. A guy that small almost has to be as skilled as Steph Curry just to be a rotation player. I think he has a solid shot at making an NBA roster - as an end of quarter 3 point specialist.

[clyde21]

Edwards is better, stronger, bigger, better defender, more explosive, quicker...also Edwards is short but has a 6-7 wingspan on him

[No-Man]

Yeah, it's the slight build that puts Howard on a tier below Edwards. A guy that small almost has to be as skilled as Steph Curry just to be a rotation player. I think he has a solid shot at making an NBA roster - as an end of quarter 3 point specialist.

I'd say like 3 tiers below

[Duke4life831]

I just think all the things Edwards has over Howard, aren't really all that transferable to the NBA. Ya he's longer and stronger, but does he use it? I think Howard is a significantly better shot maker than Edwards. I think he has the better handle is the much better shooter. I get why Edwards is viewed as the better NBA prospect because of the explosion, I just wouldnt be shocked if Howard ends up being the better player.

(I also wouldnt be shocked if both are in Europe in 3 years).

[clyde21]

I just think all the things Edwards has over Howard, aren't really all that transferable to the NBA. Ya he's longer and stronger, but does he use it? I think Howard is a significantly better shot maker than Edwards. I think he has the better handle is the much better shooter. I get why Edwards is viewed as the better NBA prospect because of the explosion, I just wouldnt be shocked if Howard ends up being the better player.

(I also wouldnt be shocked if both are in Europe in 3 years).

hmm...not sure I agree, Edwards often uses his quickness and strength to fight thru screens/picks as a defender, he's also better at the point of attack defensively, wingspan will help him finish better in the NBA not on just the defensive end

Howard just doesn't project to do anything on defense at the NBA level