Minnesota Sports Forum

Q12543 wrote:

My larger point - and it's a hypothesis - is that his improvement as a mid-range shooter is less impactful than if he were, say, an above average 3-point shooter. The very threat of a made 3 by a credible shooter creates more space than the threat of a guy knocking down a 17 footer because the defense went under a screen. Most defenses will live with Rubio taking 2-point jumpers, even if he makes a few.

Broadly, I agree with this. But it's great fun to consider all the possible permutations of different potential outcomes. The complexity of basketball and how 5 guys interact together so fluidly is one of its great appeals.

I'm playing devils advocate a bit here, but think about this:

One of the things that I've always been curious about is how Rubio shoots so many FTs for such a terrible shooter. Shouldn't the defence just let him shoot rather than bailing him out and fouling him? Clearly, despite what may be logical or probabilistically correct, the defence reacts to him and is forced to guard him.

So maybe it is much more valuable for Rubio to draw the defence off balance than to actually maximise his own scoring efficiency. And a defensive anchor is going to be much more likely to be drawn off-balance if Rubio has penetrated to the elbow for a jump shot than if he's just camped at the 3 pt line to take a 3. We could try to collect an endless number of stats to analyse all of the different contexts of different plays. I wonder if there is any difference between our offensive rebounding % when Rubio shoots a mid-ranger compared to a 3 pointer (has he drawn the defensive anchor slightly off balance and allowed Gorgui a 5% better chance at grabbing the offensive board if he's dribbled into a mid-range jumper?). If there is a legitimate difference, should we consider second chance points when considering a true effective shooting percentages? We could think of an endless number of different types of plays to analyse, and then we'd be tasked with trying to filter out the noise from the genuine signals.

There's just something about Rubio that is unique, where conventional thinking doesn't apply to him. As you've noted above, early in the season when he was giving up shots, it stood out as being the incorrect decision. In this case, somehow it seems quite clear to our minds that taking a relatively inefficient shot would have been a better strategy despite what quant metrics might say.

Shumway wrote:

Q12543 wrote:

My larger point - and it's a hypothesis - is that his improvement as a mid-range shooter is less impactful than if he were, say, an above average 3-point shooter. The very threat of a made 3 by a credible shooter creates more space than the threat of a guy knocking down a 17 footer because the defense went under a screen. Most defenses will live with Rubio taking 2-point jumpers, even if he makes a few.

Broadly, I agree with this. But it's great fun to consider all the possible permutations of different potential outcomes. The complexity of basketball and how 5 guys interact together so fluidly is one of its great appeals.

I'm playing devils advocate a bit here, but think about this:

One of the things that I've always been curious about is how Rubio shoots so many FTs for such a terrible shooter. Shouldn't the defence just let him shoot rather than bailing him out and fouling him? Clearly, despite what may be logical or probabilistically correct, the defence reacts to him and is forced to guard him.

So maybe it is much more valuable for Rubio to draw the defence off balance than to actually maximise his own scoring efficiency. And a defensive anchor is going to be much more likely to be drawn off-balance if Rubio has penetrated to the elbow for a jump shot than if he's just camped at the 3 pt line to take a 3. We could try to collect an endless number of stats to analyse all of the different contexts of different plays. I wonder if there is any difference between our offensive rebounding % when Rubio shoots a mid-ranger compared to a 3 pointer (has he drawn the defensive anchor slightly off balance and allowed Gorgui a 5% better chance at grabbing the offensive board if he's dribbled into a mid-range jumper?). If there is a legitimate difference, should we consider second chance points when considering a true effective shooting percentages? We could think of an endless number of different types of plays to analyse, and then we'd be tasked with trying to filter out the noise from the genuine signals.

There's just something about Rubio that is unique, where conventional thinking doesn't apply to him. As you've noted above, early in the season when he was giving up shots, it stood out as being the incorrect decision. In this case, somehow it seems quite clear to our minds that taking a relatively inefficient shot would have been a better strategy despite what quant metrics might say.

Good conversation here thanks Shumway for adding something new
to the conversation.

I think everyone would agree the strength of Rubio's game is moving around the court looking to make plays for others. It makes sense that he could have some decent chance of scoring somewhere besides just the 3 and at the rim. I would say more of Rubio's shots this year just thinking about it are more what I would call midrange shots which to me is more in the range of the FT line extended around the court or so instead of more dreaded long 2's that are a step or so inside the 3 point line.

Notice also if you look up on NBA.com he is shooting much better off the dribble than he is in catch and shoot situations which earlier in the season I was a bit surprised by.

Having those midrange shots matter for him especially since he has zero floater game unlike Dunn and Tyus who seem to have some chance of making that happen. If Rubio could add that baseline jumper Ridnour had where he would drive baseline then circle around all the time looking to pass only to find himself pretty much wide open for an easy shot that would be nice. A few weeks ago that seemed like a pretty remote possibility now it seems infinitely more possible but We will see if Rubio can keep shooing relatively well the rest of the season much less build in a new spot on the floor he looks to pull the trigger. Maybe he can teach Brandon Rush how to hit a 2 point jumper. Brutal.

What an interesting discussion between Q and Shumway...Shumway, we need you to post more!

Also, this thread is more evidence of how Ricky Rubio will always be the most interesting T-Wolves topic. It's amazing how often a thread title that has little or nothing to do with Ricky morphs into a Ricky talk fest. There's no question that he is our most fascinating topic.

I was about to respond to Q but then I read Shumway's response and it captured almost all my thoughts so well that maybe it doesn't make sense to write much anymore. Well done and I agree with LST that it would be really nice to read your thoughts more often.

I still add that as long as Rubio is our main option for running pick and roll, his improvement in mid range game is pretty big thing. Previously when he was not that confident shooting that mid range pull-up jumper, Rubio pick and roll late in shot clock often resulted pass to someone that wasn't open in case defense were able to prevent all 'good' passes. That lead often to really low percentage heave attempt as shot clock was winding down. If Rubio's better pull-up jumper will decrease the amount of those shots, it will improve our offense efficiency pretty much. It will also make Wolves offense more versatile since they won't need to necessarily always use Wiggins isolation as a play when there is less than 5 seconds time in shot clock.

I think that Q made an argument that current Rubio success hasn't improved our offensive efficiency compared to beginning of season when he was struggling and thus it is not that big deal. My counter argument is that if we would have been missing Lavine in the start of season and Wiggins would have had as bad shooting slump than he currently has, our offensive efficiency would have been terrible. So the fact that we have been able to keep our offensive efficiency high level despite missing our most efficient perimeter scorer and Wiggins being in one of the worst shooting slumps of his career is a pretty big deal.

longstrangetrip wrote:What an interesting discussion between Q and Shumway...Shumway, we need you to post more!

Cheers LST. Happy to be able to contribute on the few occasions I can.

Being on the opposite side of the world to you guys, I just don't get the chance to watch the Wolves in real time (games are on mid-morning my time while I'm at work). I try to catch up on games later that night, but often only get around to watching a quarter or two and that's often a couple of days after the game. So it often seems that any specific comments I have are a bit out-dated and the conversation has moved on. Perhaps I'll try to post them anyway even if a bit delayed.

And given that you've asked me to post more, I'll add this here. At the risk of blowing smoke up all of your butts, the overall community here does a great job of providing really great insightful basketball discussion. You guys are my real Wolves insight. At times the conversation gets a bit testy as there will always be different opinions and there's some really passionate fans here. But it's an absolute credit to the forum members here that this board has survived for so many years post the ESPN migration without any moderators present to police the board. So a genuine thanks to all of you regular posters. And by extension, I encourage some of our former regulars (I'm looking at you Lip and Cam) to come back and keep posting where you can.

Shumway - So maybe it is much more valuable for Rubio to draw the defence off balance than to actually maximise his own scoring efficiency. And a defensive anchor is going to be much more likely to be drawn off-balance if Rubio has penetrated to the elbow for a jump shot than if he's just camped at the 3 pt line to take a 3. We could try to collect an endless number of stats to analyse all of the different contexts of different plays. I wonder if there is any difference between our offensive rebounding % when Rubio shoots a mid-ranger compared to a 3 pointer (has he drawn the defensive anchor slightly off balance and allowed Gorgui a 5% better chance at grabbing the offensive board if he's dribbled into a mid-range jumper?). If there is a legitimate difference, should we consider second chance points when considering a true effective shooting percentages? We could think of an endless number of different types of plays to analyse, and then we'd be tasked with trying to filter out the noise from the genuine signals.

Well, now you get to the heart of the matter for many of the stat-heads now embedded in NBA front offices.

I think you are on the right track, but to me it's not the elbow jumper that puts pressure on the defense, it's getting all the way to the rim. Now we know that opens up offensive rebounding opportunities because the big man has to challenge the layup, which puts him out of position to grab the defensive rebound. So even when Rubio misses on these, it can create an easy put back opportunity for our bigs.

3's, layups, and free throws. Those are the most efficient shots in basketball not just because of the percentages involved in the shot itself, but also because of the ancillary effects on the overall offense. A 3-point sniper opens up space for dribble penetration. Dribble penetration collapses the defense and creates open shots for others. Getting fouled forces an opposing big man to sit on the bench more than normal, etc., etc.

Again, I have no problem with Rubio being a solid mid-range shooter and taking those shots when wide open. I just question the degree it impacts an offense relative to 3s and getting to the rim. He's actually done better in all of these areas of late, which is awesome.

Q12543 wrote:Shumway - So maybe it is much more valuable for Rubio to draw the defence off balance than to actually maximise his own scoring efficiency. And a defensive anchor is going to be much more likely to be drawn off-balance if Rubio has penetrated to the elbow for a jump shot than if he's just camped at the 3 pt line to take a 3. We could try to collect an endless number of stats to analyse all of the different contexts of different plays. I wonder if there is any difference between our offensive rebounding % when Rubio shoots a mid-ranger compared to a 3 pointer (has he drawn the defensive anchor slightly off balance and allowed Gorgui a 5% better chance at grabbing the offensive board if he's dribbled into a mid-range jumper?). If there is a legitimate difference, should we consider second chance points when considering a true effective shooting percentages? We could think of an endless number of different types of plays to analyse, and then we'd be tasked with trying to filter out the noise from the genuine signals.

Well, now you get to the heart of the matter for many of the stat-heads now embedded in NBA front offices.

I think you are on the right track, but to me it's not the elbow jumper that puts pressure on the defense, it's getting all the way to the rim. Now we know that opens up offensive rebounding opportunities because the big man has to challenge the layup, which puts him out of position to grab the defensive rebound. So even when Rubio misses on these, it can create an easy put back opportunity for our bigs.

3's, layups, and free throws. Those are the most efficient shots in basketball not just because of the percentages involved in the shot itself, but also because of the ancillary effects on the overall offense. A 3-point sniper opens up space for dribble penetration. Dribble penetration collapses the defense and creates open shots for others. Getting fouled forces an opposing big man to sit on the bench more than normal, etc., etc.

Again, I have no problem with Rubio being a solid mid-range shooter and taking those shots when wide open. I just question the degree it impacts an offense relative to 3s and getting to the rim. He's actually done better in all of these areas of late, which is awesome.

Q it feels like you are just beating drums labeled 3's rim and FTs. You mean to tell me that defenses aren't going to react at all to a guy shooting those midrange shots and that opens up things for other players? If Rubio's shooting from those areas stays effective defenses are going to react more and that will leave rollers more open and it will also allow for offensive rebounds. Any shot that's relatively predictable is a way to get offensive rebounds. Rubio taking shots in his spots give his teammates a chance to make a play not just at the rim.

This whole only take the most efficient shots thing doesn't account for your roster. The Spurs are a perfect example. They are in the bottom third of attempts from 3 in the league but are one of the best teams in the league. Of course they also have the top 3 point percentage which brings them to the middle of the pack in terms of 3 point makes. They also take a ton of midrange shots. What a moronic franchise they should just be jacking up 3's and shots at the rim.

The reality to me is if you can get Rubio to take and make any shot with some solid success I'm feeling good about that because it increases his confidence and makes him more aggresive looking for his shot. He isn't likely to keep up this year he has been on lately where his shot chart is basically like St Patrick's day but if he keeps finding shots that work for him that's likely to help his 3 point shooting you and everyone else wants too. It also makes him more likely to get to the rim because guys have to contest defend him because he is hitting that jumper. It used to be you were basically defending Rubio just to keep him from Passing or maybe every once in a while from making you look silly when he blows past you with no help for an easy finish at the rim. That's not the case right now. Right now Rubio is a scorer...what universe are we living in? :)

Monster, I'm not sure you are really understanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying Rubio should avoid ever taking mid-range shots and he should stick to only jacking up 3s and getting to the rim. What I'm saying is that mid-range shots/long 2's are "less good" attempts versus getting to the rim and hitting open 3's.

Of course I'm happy he is making mid-range shots. I just don't think it's as big of a key to overall team offense as others might. But it certainly isn't a bad thing!

Q12543 wrote:Monster, I'm not sure you are really understanding what I'm saying. I'm not saying Rubio should avoid ever taking mid-range shots and he should stick to only jacking up 3s and getting to the rim. What I'm saying is that mid-range shots/long 2's are "less good" attempts versus getting to the rim and hitting open 3's.

Of course I'm happy he is making mid-range shots. I just don't think it's as big of a key to overall team offense as others might. But it certainly isn't a bad thing!

Ok that makes sense. I wasn't reading that way. Is his midrange shooting a massive positive effect? No. Is it a nice development? Yeah. Could it be the difference between him being effective in playoff games and being a possible liability despite all the other good he does? It's possible depending on how his own coach utilizes him.

I still think Rubio can become a good enough 3 point shooter percentage wise. The issue will be if he is hitting them at a decent rate when it matters. He has been streaky. I would also remind folks that fingers crossed he is heading toward the first back to back seasons of playing nearly entire seasons and if he is healthy all offseason...he may be able to build on what he has done instead of just trying to find his game again. I'm not suggesting hope for him to take some sort of giant leap as a scorer and shooter. Being healthy and playing in the same system with the same players for the same coach and being able to work on his game in back to back seasons COULD bring some positive gains. He hasn't had that yet in his NBA career. I'm hopeful but not banking on anything.

I think everyone is right about BlondeRicky, including Shumway (Gordon Shumway? Maybe).

But I still wish they do the trade with NYK. I think BR/Belly/Bazz/Payne for for Rose/Anderson/two-guys-the-King-of-Williston-is-sick-of would have been a good move long-term, even with how well B/R has played the last 20 games or so.

Even though I know even less about College BKB than I do in previous years, which is saying something, I am so looking forward to this draft. Imagine MIN with a top 3 pick but not having an obvious hole? Priceless. Prediction: They draft someone who is a pure 5, to fill the role Aldrich didn't, and maybe start so KAT can play the 4, where his minutes are HOF-level.