However, it's often more meaningful to see these kinds of numbers in terms of production, rather than ratios or percentages. You can get the "extra" points a player produces with three-point shots per game with: ((3PM * 3) - (3PA * lgPPA)) / GP. These methods get rid of many of the the marginal players who creep into some lists.
3-Point "extra" Production per Game (minimum 50 GP)
2.62 Jason Kapono
2.15 Brent Barry
2.10 Luther Head
1.80 Eddie House
1.76 Leandro Barbosa
1.73 Steve Nash
1.54 Bostjan Nachbar
1.44 Jason Terry
1.33 Kyle Korver
1.28 Raja Bell
I got the correct results from the first formula, but I got different results with the second one:
Jason Kapono 1.441
Steve Nash 1.270
Luther Head 1.209
Leandro Barbosa 1.196
Jason Terry 1.053
Raja Bell 0.998
Brent Barry 0.976
Mike Miller 0.952
Kyle Korver 0.858
Anthony Parker 0.854
I checked and double-checked my spreadsheet. Is something missing?
Edit: How about integrating some sort of 3PA qualifier, something to the effect that a player has to shoot an x number of 3PA out of his total FGA to qualify (instead of using the minimum 100 3PA)?
I've always wondered how media people pigeon-holed certain players just because they were proficient at shooting the 3. So, I wanted a more quantitative way of measuring this role.
It's semantics, but I think the original post captures what a specialist is. I would contrast Steve Kerr and Jason Kapono with Steve Nash. Charles' stats are valuable, but I don't think they capture specialization (associated with concentration in a particular area). I think Charles' stats capture talent (expertise). Particulary given supersub's original question, I don't think Steve Nash should be pigeon-holed into the Kerr/Kapono role because Charles shows he shoots the three almost comparably.
I think of the analogy in medicine, people aren't both superstar caridologists and orthopedic surgeons. They are specialists in one field or the other. As a player with multiple talents, Steve Nash is closer to a superstar primary care physicians, perhaps the surgeon general.
Similarly, I'd say that someone in the Walker category who concentrates on shooting the 3 on offense but doesn't do it as well is a specialist that is not as talented as others. Someone out there is the worst cardiologist in the US, but they're still a specialist.
I have to disagree with part of this, Aaron. If you specialize in one area and later obtain certification in a second area, you are then a specialist in both areas. The second specialization does not negate the first and return you to being a generalist. I certainly know doctors and academics who have more than one specialty.
Nevertheless, your point about semantics is well taken. Sports has its own parlance, so you can make an argument that "specialist" means whatever basketball fans think it means. But, dictionary definitions aside, is there any value in ranking by "Three point specialists who take relatively few two-point attempts"?
This summer, when Bryan Colangelo wanted to add an outside shooter to the Raptor's roster, he might have consulted a list of available free agents ranked by some combination of three-point efficiency and three-point scoring volume. (It makes sense to determine exactly how that list might best be calculated or presented.) But, why would Bryan want to lower a player's ranking simply because he was also a good passer or defender or two-point scorer? Frankly, a list like Kevin's seems arbitrary at best.
After all, is it reasonable for a list of "Three point specialists" to rank Diawara (who shot .288) second, while ignoring Kapono and Herrmann and Nash? Semantics aside, a method that rewards players for their limitations rather than their contributions just seems self-defeating.
Something that ought to be kept in mind in this discussion is that three-point specialists are not like other specialists (say, rebounding or shot-blocking) in that their primary statistic is much more variable than most.
For example, let's take the case of Fred Hoiberg. Hoiberg was generally considered one of the best shooters in the NBA, and during his two seasons in Minnesota he shot 44.2% and 48.3% from downtown. I think you'd find a pretty strong consensus that Hoiberg is a three-point specialist.
However, during his last two seasons in Chicago, Hoiberg shot just 26.1% and 23.8% on threes. Was he not a specialist then?
Charles, in response to your question I'll point out that there is value to descriptive statistics even if they don't relate to a player's value. Sometimes, as in projecting future development/performance, it may be as important to know how a player plays as how well a player plays.
Something that ought to be kept in mind in this discussion is that three-point specialists are not like other specialists (say, rebounding or shot-blocking) in that their primary statistic is much more variable than most.
For example, let's take the case of Fred Hoiberg. Hoiberg was generally considered one of the best shooters in the NBA, and during his two seasons in Minnesota he shot 44.2% and 48.3% from downtown. I think you'd find a pretty strong consensus that Hoiberg is a three-point specialist.
However, during his last two seasons in Chicago, Hoiberg shot just 26.1% and 23.8% on threes. Was he not a specialist then?
Charles, in response to your question I'll point out that there is value to descriptive statistics even if they don't relate to a player's value. Sometimes, as in projecting future development/performance, it may be as important to know how a player plays as how well a player plays.
Sure. I have no problem with categorizing players based on their limitations, rather than on their production and efficiency. The problem is compiling a list of "specialists" on that basis.
I call on a specialist when I need his or her special skills or knowledge. What other special skills the individual may or may not have is irrelevant. As long as they are a specialist in the matter at hand, that's what count.
I realize that sports lingo can be idiomatic, but there is no way I am counting on Diawara as a "three-point specialist" when he shoots .288.
Joined: 31 Dec 2004 Posts: 879 Location: Durham, NC
Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 10:05 am Post subject:
thref23 wrote:
When putting together composite scores, I ranked players by 3 pt FG%, punished players who didn't take so many 3 point attempts (that way Elton Brand wasn't tops in the league), and weighted the results slightly on a per team basis (players on teams with a better offense were more likely to get open looks, so they were slightly punished).
It seems like you guys are bemoaning using something like 3PA/Poss because it ranks guys like Antoine Walker, who take and miss a lot of 3's, too highly. And understandably, he's not really a specialist if he doesn't do it well.
So, how about instead using 3PM/Poss? This rewards guys for both taking and making 3-point shots.
Joined: 31 Dec 2004 Posts: 879 Location: Durham, NC
Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 10:15 am Post subject:
Charles wrote:
This summer, when Bryan Colangelo wanted to add an outside shooter to the Raptor's roster, he might have consulted a list of available free agents ranked by some combination of three-point efficiency and three-point scoring volume. (It makes sense to determine exactly how that list might best be calculated or presented.) But, why would Bryan want to lower a player's ranking simply because he was also a good passer or defender or two-point scorer? Frankly, a list like Kevin's seems arbitrary at best.
I think there's a few reasons. The first one that comes to mind is that if a player has a few other specialties, they might be inclined to want to use them, along with using their 3-point shooting skills. For example, I would bet Steve Nash is somewhere near the top of the list that you mentioned. If Nash happened to be a free agent this summer, should he consider coming to the Raptors to be a 3-point specialist, and in the process accept a lower salary than he could otherwise command as a full-service PG who can also drain the 3?
My point is that any such list needs to be tempered with an assessment of the player's overall abilities and tendencies, in order to properly determine who would be the best fit for the team's available need.
This summer, when Bryan Colangelo wanted to add an outside shooter to the Raptor's roster, he might have consulted a list of available free agents ranked by some combination of three-point efficiency and three-point scoring volume. (It makes sense to determine exactly how that list might best be calculated or presented.) But, why would Bryan want to lower a player's ranking simply because he was also a good passer or defender or two-point scorer? Frankly, a list like Kevin's seems arbitrary at best.
I think there's a few reasons. The first one that comes to mind is that if a player has a few other specialties, they might be inclined to want to use them, along with using their 3-point shooting skills. For example, I would bet Steve Nash is somewhere near the top of the list that you mentioned. If Nash happened to be a free agent this summer, should he consider coming to the Raptors to be a 3-point specialist, and in the process accept a lower salary than he could otherwise command as a full-service PG who can also drain the 3?
Sure, you're right. Steve Nash would be foolish to use his ability to shoot threes as his primary factor in choosing a team to play for. But, the question is not whether Nash would consider going to the Raptors as a three-point specialist, but whether the Raptors would be well served having Nash as a three-point specialist.
Perhaps the issue would be clearer if we looked at a less extreme example.
The previous summer Colangelo was in a similar situation and picked up Anthony Parker partially for his ability to provide a three-point threat (Parker made 115 threes at a .441 clip.) However, the fact that Parker also penetrates well means that he does not rate particularly well on a method, such as the one Kevin presented, which counts two-point shots against you.
If Colangelo looked for Parker on Kevin's 3PA/FGA list , he would find him way down in 53rd spot, well behind many inferior 3P shooters. Is that list providing Colangelo with useful information? I think calling such a list "Three point specialists" would be misleading.
Quote:
My point is that any such list needs to be tempered with an assessment of the player's overall abilities and tendencies, in order to properly determine who would be the best fit for the team's available need.
I agree. In deciding how to use a player you would, of course, consider all the available information, not just his ability in one area. But, that doesn't justify a "3-point specialist" method that rates Diawara and Vujacic ahead of Kapono and Herrmann.
The fact that Diawara can not make two-pointers is just not sufficient reason to call him a three point specialist.
Do you really think it makes sense for Jason Kapono, who led the NBA in 3-point percentage and won the All-Star 3-point contest, to rank 63rd among three point specialists simply because he can also knock down a mid-range two?
The fact that Diawara can not make two-pointers is just not sufficient reason to call him a three point specialist.
Depending on what we're doing with the terminology, it's on its way to being sufficient. If a player in fact IS good at 2-point shooting as well as 3-point shooting, then I would say that ipso facto we do NOT have a specialist, what we have is a GOOD SHOOTER period. Or you can call him a "deadeye", or "unconscious", or a "marskman" -- but he's not a specialist.
Now I admit that what that really does is tell us who is NOT a specialist, i.e. it gives us a necessary condition for being a specialist, not a sufficient one. But the general drift is: yeah, if you shoot 3-pointers better than you shoot 2-pointers, you're on you're way to meeting the definition of being a "specialist".
Quote:
Do you really think it makes sense for Jason Kapono, who led the NBA in 3-point percentage and won the All-Star 3-point contest, to rank 63rd among three point specialists simply because he can also knock down a mid-range two?
Again, it depends on what the term "specialist" is being used for. You seem to want it to mean "someone who's really good at shooting 3-pointers". I call those guys good shooters, long range marksmen, etc. -- but not specialists. The purpose of the ranking, at least as I see it, is not to show who's BEST at 3-point shooting, but who's most SPECIALIZED in it.
The fact that Diawara can not make two-pointers is just not sufficient reason to call him a three point specialist.
Depending on what we're doing with the terminology, it's on its way to being sufficient. If a player in fact IS good at 2-point shooting as well as 3-point shooting, then I would say that ipso facto we do NOT have a specialist, what we have is a GOOD SHOOTER period. Or you can call him a "deadeye", or "unconscious", or a "marskman" -- but he's not a specialist.
The Oxford dictionary defines a specialist as "a person who is highly skilled or knowledgeable in a particular field." His ability or lack of ability in other areas is not considered. That is the definition I am accustomed to.
If I need a particular type of open heart surgery and my family doctor shows me a list indicating that Cardiologist A has performed this operation 250 times with a 98.5% success rate and Cardiologist B has performed the surgery 180 times with a 94.0% success rate, I am not going to care whether this procedure makes up a larger percentage of Cardiologist B's case load. I already have the information I need.
It is a question of semantics:
The traditional definition of a specialist demands that: 1) the individual demonstrate that he is "highly skilled" - Diawara is off the list, but that 2) an individual may have more than one specialty -- Kapono, Parker and Nash are on the list.
On the other hand, you could adopt an idiomatic sports media definition which says that 1) if a player only does one thing he is a specialist -- regardless of demonstrated skill, but that 2) a specialist may not have balancing skills.
I prefer the former definition because, in my opinion, a "three-point specialist" formula that ranks Diawara (49 three-pointers at .288) a page and a half ahead of Jason Kapono (108 three-pointers at .514) is dangerously close to being numbers for the sake of numbers -- at best, of limited utility and, at worst, downright misleading. But, hey, knock yourself out.
If I need a particular type of open heart surgery and my family doctor shows me a list indicating that Cardiologist A has performed this operation 250 times with a 98.5% success rate and Cardiologist B has performed the surgery 180 times with a 94.0% success rate, I am not going to care whether this procedure makes up a larger percentage of Cardiologist B's case load. I already have the information I need.
What about Cardiologist C? He is more than willing to conduct open heart surgery for you at a lower cost, and appears to have a decent success rate. But he's not a licensed practioner and when you dig deep his track record is less than reassuring.
Does that make him a bad specialist? Or does it make him a con artist? I say he's a con artist, and not a specialist.
Also, if Cardiologist A is a do it all and this type of operation makes up a small percentage of his professional responsibilities, chances are either you are not going to be able to book an appointment with him until its too late, and/or you may have to pay an exorbitant fee for his services, because you will also have to pay for expertise in other areas which do not matter to you.
In other words, Cardiologist A can be a specialist when/if he wants to as he has the required skill set, but he arguably does not act as a specialist.
I could listen to an argument that Shane Battier is both a defensive specialist and a three point specialist - kind of like a dual major. Perhaps I could say the same perhaps about Anthony Parker, Sasha Vujacic, or Bruce Bowen. I have trouble considering Steve Nash to be a 3 pt specialist.
And I'm not necessarily right or wrong IMO, its just how I view the subject.
I agree with most of your points. I should probably quote them to emphasize that fact, but my apologies for brevity here. In particular, I think your comments on Diawara make a lot of sense, and agree that there are some MDs who have multiple specialties and that does not make them a PCP.
However, I thought I'd highlight a couple of points where I disagree. After all, that's often more interesting.
Charles wrote:
If I need a particular type of open heart surgery and my family doctor shows me a list indicating that Cardiologist A has performed this operation 250 times with a 98.5% success rate and Cardiologist B has performed the surgery 180 times with a 94.0% success rate, I am not going to care whether this procedure makes up a larger percentage of Cardiologist B's case load. I already have the information I need.
I actually think you might. What if I told you that Cardiologist A used to perform this procedure regularly but hasn't in the last five years as he switched to focusing on stents? Meanwhile, all of Cardiologist B's procedures have been performed in the last two years, when open heart surgery has been reserved for sicker patients.
We're probably getting off-topic, but thought I'd mention that. Perhaps this falls in the category of "just-one-number-isn't-meaningful" that we're hearing on the PER threads.
Charles wrote:
Nevertheless, your point about semantics is well taken. Sports has its own parlance, so you can make an argument that "specialist" means whatever basketball fans think it means. But, dictionary definitions aside, is there any value in ranking by "Three point specialists who take relatively few two-point attempts"?
This could be valuable to front offices as they try to fill their rosters as efficiently as possible. There's no point in a team paying for Kapono's 2 point shooting skills (or Nash's passing per another post) if you know that his role is only going to let him shoot from 3 point range, right?
I think an interesting question that gets back to supersub's original question is "Given that Jason Kapono demonstrated great skill at three-point shooting this season (e.g. Charles' stats) but also can shoot two-pointers effectively, is he unfairly pigeonholed as a player with a single talent, three-point shooting?" The answer might be "he has a single talent, shooting, and is not unfairly pigeonholed as a shooter of jump shots and free throws".
Every time I've heard the word specialist used in basketball it has been to refer to a player that sole purpose in the game is to provide a certain skill. When u put it in context with the five players on the floor sometimes u have certain players that sole reason for playing time is shooting. I would not consider players with multi-dimensions in there game as specialist. Specialist is not really a positive term. Specialist are paid for 1 skill.
In the draft its often said u don't take specialist till the second round. A player like Paul Milsap was considered a rebounding specialist. Bobby Jones was a defensive specialist. Steve Novak was a 3 point specialist. I criticized the pick of JJ Redick because why would u take a 3 point specialist so high in the draft.
I've always felt that 1 great skill your a specialist. 2 great skills your in the 8 man rotation and potential starter. 3 great skills your a potential all-star.
The Oxford dictionary defines a specialist as "a person who is highly skilled or knowledgeable in a particular field." His ability or lack of ability in other areas is not considered. That is the definition I am accustomed to.
Definitely not the definition that I (and evidently many others in this thread) are accustomed to. The Oxford dictionary can be idiosyncratic, possibly because it attempts to cover the entire English language, rather than the "American" language.
Here's a sampling from other dictionaries, these are the first four listed in dictionary.com:
Random House Unabridged Dictionary: 1. a person who devotes himself or herself to one subject or to one particular branch of a subject or pursuit. (Italics added)
American Heritage Dictionary: 1. One who is devoted to a particular occupation or branch of study or research:
WordNet® 3.0: 1. an expert who is devoted to one occupation or branch of learning
Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary (Beta Version): a person who makes a very deep study of one branch of a subject or field
Those are the definitions (or really definition, they all pretty much agree with each other) that I am accustomed to. I literally have never heard anyone use the usage that your cite from Oxford, except of course for the connotation that a specialist will indeed by "highly skilled or knowledgable". There's a definite connotation there -- note however that it is not part of the other dictionaries' denotation. One can be "devoted" or make a "deep study" without being very good.
As for the Oxford definition that you cite, there's only one word that jumps to my mind with that definition, and the word is not "specialist".
I should add though that much as AaronB says, there is a potential area of agreement between all of us: we could define, for the purposes of studying 3-point shooters, a "specialist" as someone who is both better at 3-pointers than he is at 2-pointers (i.e. utilizing the concept that most of us are advocating) AND who is also GOOD at shooting 3-pointers (utilizing the concept that Charles is advocating, and that I think we all recognize is connoted by the word "specialist").
That does raise the issue however of which attribute to put more emphasis on: the degree of specialization, or the degree of "specialness".
That BTW may be at the crux of this semantic disagreement: most of us define a "specialist" as some who has "specialized", i.e. become "specific". Charles seems to define a "specialist" as someone who is "special", i.e. especially good.
All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3Next
Page 2 of 3
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
