Rubio's shooting...

[khans2k5 [enjin:6608728]]

Just to defend eFG% real quick the whole point of the stat is to place value on the shots you are taking. A 3 is worth more than a 2 and that is why it bumps the stat up so high. Garnett may be a great mid-range shooter, but that is the worst shot to take in the game. So Kidd taking and making more 3's at a lower clip is more valuable than KG taking and making more mid-range jump shots at a better clip. That's is why it is the preferred shooting stat now. FG% doesn't place any weight on the shot you are taking and the value it truly has. eFG% does take that into account and that is why guys who can hit 3's at a decent clip have better eFG's than guys who may have a higher FG% overall because the guys hitting 3's are adding more value overall because their shots are worth more. You can shoot a lot worse on 3's and still be more valuable than someone who shoots better at 2's because you get the extra point every time your shot goes in. That is just math. That is why the good teams either score at the rim or make 3's. The midrange game is going away because it is statistically the worst shot on the floor to take.

[AbeVigodaLive]

Just to defend eFG% real quick the whole point of the stat is to place value on the shots you are taking. A 3 is worth more than a 2 and that is why it bumps the stat up so high. Garnett may be a great mid-range shooter, but that is the worst shot to take in the game. So Kidd taking and making more 3's at a lower clip is more valuable than KG taking and making more mid-range jump shots at a better clip. That's is why it is the preferred shooting stat now. FG% doesn't place any weight on the shot you are taking and the value it truly has. eFG% does take that into account and that is why guys who can hit 3's at a decent clip have better eFG's than guys who may have a higher FG% overall because the guys hitting 3's are adding more value overall because their shots are worth more. You can shoot a lot worse on 3's and still be more valuable than someone who shoots better at 2's because you get the extra point every time your shot goes in. That is just math. That is why the good teams either score at the rim or make 3's. The midrange game is going away because it is statistically the worst shot on the floor to take.

Daryl Morey would be proud of you Kahns. And yes... I'm well aware of entire offensive philosophies (e.g., Houston) being designed around only layups, 3s and free throws.

But again... context. Are you honestly saying that Kidd standing 25 feet away from the basket, waiting to shoot a wide open shot because the opposition lets him shoot it at a below average rate does more than Garnett popping out on the pick-and-roll for that mid-range J?

Danny Ainge and Co. in Boston might disagree with that a great deal. Basically what I'm saying is you have to be careful with advanced stats. They can tell us a lot sometimes. Other times... they can be skewed to tell us whatever we want them so they fit our narrative.

[observerII [enjin:6598557]]

Statistics: the only science that enables different experts using the same figures to draw different conclusions.
Evan Esar, prolific epigramologist

[thedoper]

Just to defend eFG% real quick the whole point of the stat is to place value on the shots you are taking. A 3 is worth more than a 2 and that is why it bumps the stat up so high. Garnett may be a great mid-range shooter, but that is the worst shot to take in the game. So Kidd taking and making more 3's at a lower clip is more valuable than KG taking and making more mid-range jump shots at a better clip. That's is why it is the preferred shooting stat now. FG% doesn't place any weight on the shot you are taking and the value it truly has. eFG% does take that into account and that is why guys who can hit 3's at a decent clip have better eFG's than guys who may have a higher FG% overall because the guys hitting 3's are adding more value overall because their shots are worth more. You can shoot a lot worse on 3's and still be more valuable than someone who shoots better at 2's because you get the extra point every time your shot goes in. That is just math. That is why the good teams either score at the rim or make 3's. The midrange game is going away because it is statistically the worst shot on the floor to take.

No such thing as a bad shot if you make it at a high % regardless of eFG or FG. Whatever you make at a high % take that shot. 50% 2 is better than 30% 3. Simple math. Do what you can do best. I imagine Rubio being able to develop a great mid range jumper based on his ability to hit FTs. I don't see the strength or form for him to become a much better 3pt shooter. Mid range shots are great for those that develop a mid range game.

[m4gor [enjin:6667447]]

Well, what is really scary for me is the fact that with better personal around him, his shot is not improving, in past years i was talking to myself that with such thrashy wings he has to take silly shot or drive to the basket, however it does not look like this anymore for me.

Problem with Ricky imho is that he is trying to find open guy to the last split second and if he can't he just throw that in the direction of basket, i would not even call that a shot many times.

As a fan from Europe i am following Ricky for long time. He was not effective PG in Barcelona and he was not effective PG for Spanish national team. And the way wolves played him against Mavs was exactly the way he was used in Europe.

If he cannot convert wide open shots at some reasonable rate, he is just too much of a liability and it is better when Martin and Love combine together than to let Ricky handle ball and put immense pressure on the rest of team as he doesn't need to be guarded.

[markkbu [enjin:6588958]]

Just to defend eFG% real quick the whole point of the stat is to place value on the shots you are taking. A 3 is worth more than a 2 and that is why it bumps the stat up so high. Garnett may be a great mid-range shooter, but that is the worst shot to take in the game. So Kidd taking and making more 3's at a lower clip is more valuable than KG taking and making more mid-range jump shots at a better clip. That's is why it is the preferred shooting stat now. FG% doesn't place any weight on the shot you are taking and the value it truly has. eFG% does take that into account and that is why guys who can hit 3's at a decent clip have better eFG's than guys who may have a higher FG% overall because the guys hitting 3's are adding more value overall because their shots are worth more. You can shoot a lot worse on 3's and still be more valuable than someone who shoots better at 2's because you get the extra point every time your shot goes in. That is just math. That is why the good teams either score at the rim or make 3's. The midrange game is going away because it is statistically the worst shot on the floor to take.

Daryl Morey would be proud of you Kahns. And yes... I'm well aware of entire offensive philosophies (e.g., Houston) being designed around only layups, 3s and free throws.

But again... context. Are you honestly saying that Kidd standing 25 feet away from the basket, waiting to shoot a wide open shot because the opposition lets him shoot it at a below average rate does more than Garnett popping out on the pick-and-roll for that mid-range J?

Danny Ainge and Co. in Boston might disagree with that a great deal. Basically what I'm saying is you have to be careful with advanced stats. They can tell us a lot sometimes. Other times... they can be skewed to tell us whatever we want them so they fit our narrative.

Kahns......you should also probably accept that Abe just can't understand.

Abe, I'll logically walk you through this, don't panic. Abe, can you acknowledge that, when considering multiple 5 year spans, and that player's eFG% goes from under .460 to over .510, that the player is scoring more efficiently in the later 5 year span?

if you get the feeling that there is a follow-on question, then your feeling is correct.