Aren't These Twenties Lying on 34th Street?

By -
The Knicks have two highly efficient shooters on the team: Steve Novak hits 48% of his threes, while Tyson Chandler hits 69% of his shots. The gives them adjusted field goal percentages of 67% and 69% respectively. Meanwhile, Carmelo Anthony has an AFG% of 43%.

Yet Anthony shoots nearly twice as many shots per game as... Chandler? Novak? No, he shoots nearly twice as many shots per game as the two of them combined. So the Knicks offense is continually passing up a 7 in 10 shot at a bucket for a 4 in 10 shot.

Am I the only one who sees something wrong here?

Comments

  1. Gabe Ruth11:49 AM

    Anthony needs to go. He really is trying to fit in because the team did so well while he was out, but he just can't play team basketball. Besides his inefficiency, his style turns everyone else into bystanders (most notably Fields). Novak is sick. Chandler is not sick (on offense, anyway) and should keep doing what he's doing. And Lin needs to grow a left hand.

    It blows my mind how little anyone in the NBA talks about FG%.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more