Thee Idiotic Minivan K
Well-Known Member
I don’t know WTH you idiots are arguing. He’s effing good. We got a steal at 16
Hardy Says Keyonte Has a Chance to be a Star
- Thread starter Saint Cy of JFC
- Start date
@fishonjazz Defending his right to be stupid to the death lol
Quintuppling down. Your stamina for refusing to try and understand something is impressive. FWIW, when I first engaged with you, I really wasn't trying to be a Dick. I figured you just didn't realize. I thought I could help you understand if you didn't know what the difference was. Now I'm not sure what this is, but let my try and explain again.
If someone has a 39% fg% you can only guess they are inefficient, you can't know. It would only take them making 56% of their makes as 3s to have an efg% of 50% or higher. 56% isn't some crazy number that would never happen. There were 70 NBA players that had 56% or higher of their attempts from 3. On the extreme end is Sam Merrill who shoots 90% of his attempts from 3. He only has a 40% fg%, but an elite efg%.
Why use a metric where you have to assume, when you can easily use a metric that let's you know?
Look, I was honestly trying to be helpful and then I did get condescending, so I apologize. I'm trying to be helpful again. You can keep talking about basketball and use fg% to describe efficiency and people will continue to think you are dumb. I don't think you are dumb, I just think you are stubborn. So, do with this information what you will.
(Just in case you are curious how I came up with 56% of makes from 3. 39 + 11 = 50. 11÷.5 = 22. 22/39 = 56%.)
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
2025 Award Winner
First. I have said multiple times that I understand what efg is. I do. Also said it's a better indicator of efficiency. (Showing just how stubborn I am right?)
Second. I literally can look at the 39 field percentage and know that keyonte George (the player in question here) is inefficient. I know he isn't a sharpshooter from 3. Maybe you can't but I can.
Kudos on the sam Merrill example. Field goal percentage wouldn't work on him like it does keyonte (I also mentioned in many posts that there are exceptions to field goal percentage being a good indicator for efficiency). For keyonte it works wonderfully as he is basically the exact same inefficient whether using field goal percentage or efg (as I showed with his NBA rankings in each.)
3rd. Field goal percentage is a stat I and many others have been posting on this website and websites all over the Internet for years when talking about efficiency. In fact I can almost guarantee you that in the very next jazz game you watch there will be a graphic posted at halftime comparing the jazz and their opponents stats and one of the stats will be field goal percentage.
You and kqwin act as if I'm the first and only person to use fg% as a stat and that's it's completely worthless. Tell it to basketball reference and every other website that tracks stats.
Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Ok, cool. I'll admit that I'm a little bit of a stat nerd, and I can see how that would be annoying. You just kept saying that you understood something, but then would say something else that indicated you didn't understand. I think the misunderstanding is that you kept referring to the specific situation with Keyonte, where I was trying to talk in general.
Just to clear the record, I never said that fg% isn't a useful stat, just that it doesn’t tell you how efficienct or good of a shooter someone is by itself.
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
2025 Award Winner
Miggs
Well-Known Member
I don’t think anyone would call VanVleet a star.
You named one player. You said I’m sure it’s not that hard to find players. If it’s not that hard, please find us three players whose peaks were from 2010 on, who shot less than 40% as rookies.
Drawing a hard line at 40% is stupid.
Some guys in the same ballpark or below:
Immanuel Quickley (39.5)
Coby White (39.4)
Darius Garland (40.1)
Grayson Allen (37.6)
Lonzo Ball (36.0)
Jamal Murray (40.4)
Brandon Ingram (40.2)
Jerami Grant (35.1)
KCP (39.6)
James Harden (40.3)
Not all of those are bonafide stars, but some are there as great examples of good shooters who struggled as rookies.
For example Grayson Allen was 37.6/32.3 as a rookie and 46.6/40.4 as a sophomore.
Also FYI, only 1 of those guys took a higher percentage of 3 point shots than Key (54.1% of FGs being 3PA). That guy is Grayson Allen (55.6%).
If you look at eFG% (Key had 48.2%), you can get a lot of stars/superstars who turned out to be pretty good shooters:
Devin Booker (48.0%)
Kevin Durant (45.1%)
Kobe Bryant (47.7%)
Trae Young (48.0%)
Ray Allen (49.4%)
Allen Iverson (46.7%)
Steve Nash (48.9%)
.....and so on..... In fact Steve Nash 3rd year I just noticed he shot 36.3% from the field and had an eFG% of 44.1.. and that was the first year when he got major PT (31.9 mpg in 40 games).
Again, the context is sorely lacking here. For most of the cited stars/superstars their rookie season was in the late 90s, the time when the league average eFG% was in the 46%-47% range (way fewer 3-pointers, rules that favored defense). So, they actually shot at or slightly above the league average in their first season. For comparison, last year the league-average eFG% was 54.7%, so Keyonte shot -6.5% to the NBA average. I can assure you that no player on your list was even close to being that much below in their rookie year.
You either need to look for players with the similar difference in their first year (-6.5% eFG) or limit your comparisons to the last 4 years only, when the NBA-average eFG % was in the 53%-55% range.
I dont need to do anything.
But if I wanted I could point out that Kevin Durant hit 45.5% of his 2 point shots (also 28.8% from 3!!), Nash hit 42.5% of his 2s, James Harden hit 42.4% on 2s.... etc.. while Key made 45.9% of his 2s (just took lower % of them).
Hell Brandon Ingram made 44.3% of his 2s and 29.4% of his 3s with a stinking eFG% of 44.2, yet he still beat Key in FG%. Thats how bad FG% can be as an indicator.
One of the big reasons why the Jazz played Keyonte so much is because he was so historically bad on both ends of the floor and lost them so many games (which the Jazz really wanted). How bad? Well, if you look at the WS (win shares) Keyonte has -0.3. This is the second worst result for anyone on the Jazz roster in the last 9 years (the one that narrowly beat George was Brice with another -0.3 WS). You could play Keyonte and Brice and legitimately tank unbelievably hard while having some hope that they maybe turn into good players one day.
For the curious: ten years ago the Jazz did have players with worse WS than Keyonte: Diantte Garret, George Lucas III and Brandon Rush.
For the curious: ten years ago the Jazz did have players with worse WS than Keyonte: Diantte Garret, George Lucas III and Brandon Rush.
Yes, you do. Your post implied that Keyonte's shooting efficiency was on par with the greats from the past in their rookie season when it is obviously not a fair comparison since basketball was played very differently back then. It's the same if someone was comparing the rebounding numbers of Duncan or Gobert to the RPG in the 1960s and declared Duncan and Gobert to be mediocre rebounders. The context matters.
Jazz used Key to tank while keeping their 2023 top pick in G league?
The stupidity of that theory is next level.
No. They wanted examples about low fg% and efg% guys which I provided. Keyonte was inefficient and there is no argument about that.
That waa not a comp, just a list of guys who shot poorly as rookies and improved since then. Has absolutely nothing to do with "era".
Wouldnt expect you to undestand the difference though.
Well, you did wrote that "If you look at eFG% (Key had 48.2%), you can get a lot of stars/superstars who turned out to be pretty good shooters:". I thought it was a direct comparison.
Also, I want to stress one more time: the eFG% that you gave for the stars starting their NBA career in the late 90s does not indicate that they shot poorly as rookies and it was not an example of low eFG%. These players had the league-average shooting efficiency in their rookie seasons or even slightly better.
Also, what's the deal with the repeated personal attacks? Do you think it helps to facilitate discussion in any way? Because in my experience it wasn't the case but if you have a good argument that it actually does I am ready to learn and start flinging personal insults left and right. For the common good.
There are no "repeated personal attacks". I said your theory about Key being used to tank was stupid. Thats not a personal attack, its just my opinion on your theory. The latter post was more personal, but you are just trying too hard to shame and bury a guy we all should hope turns out to be good.
Also its frustrating that you simply refuse to understand that there is no comparison, just proof of progress. Those guys I listed had their career highs in eFG% probably north of 10% better than their rookie seasons. So the whole point is to prove that rookie season alone is hardly deciding.
However lets try and verify your "every guy was league average or better" claim and see how they compare against their rookie year league averages:
Devin Booker -2.2%
Kevin Durant -4.6%
Kobe Bryant -1.6%
Trae Young -4.4%
Ray Allen +0.3%
Allen Iverson -2.5%
Steve Nash -0.4%
So there goes your credibility. I mean Nash and Allen were there (2 out 7, yay!), but Nash shot 44.1% in his 3rd year which was his first year as a starter and his glow up happened on year 4 after which he shot 54% or more almost every year for the rest of his career.
He needs at least 2 major leaps to become a star. But maybe just 1 leap to become a decent NBA rotation guy.