I hear this Anthony Edwards kid is a lot like Jordan...

[Bush4Ever.]

1990:
FTs: 76.4
2s: 48.8
3s: 33.1
3pt rate: 7.6

2023:
FTs: 78.2
2s: 54.8
3s: 36.1
3pt rate: 38.7

The FG percentages being the same (47.6 vs. 47.5) reflects nothing more than more three-pointers being added to the denominator of FG percentage in 2024. That's literally it.

You can have every single component part to overall shooting percentages by superior, but still end up with similar FG percentages. A common reference point (like 75 percent FT shooting, 50 percent on 2s, etc...) carries meaningfully different information between those two cases.

Drug A: cures 70/100 males (70pt) and 20/100 females (20pt) (90/200 people total, 45 percent)
Drug B: cures 40/50 males (80pt) and 40/150 females (27pt) (80/200 people total, 40 percent)

Drug B does better for both males and females, but has a lower overall percentage simply as a function of having more of a low success rate group (females) relative to males.

FG percentages are the same (roughly) between the old and modern game, but simply as a function of the modern game having more of a low success event (threes) relative to twos.

[_Vcsgrizzfan_]

Arithmetic can be challenging for some.

[thedangerouskitchen]

Arithmetic can be challenging for some.

CLEARLY you struggle with it, which is why you need all those made-up formula's to help you interpret basic stats, fool.

[thedangerouskitchen]

1990:
FTs: 76.4
2s: 48.8
3s: 33.1
3pt rate: 7.6

2023:
FTs: 78.2
2s: 54.8
3s: 36.1
3pt rate: 38.7

The FG percentages being the same (47.6 vs. 47.5) reflects nothing more than more three-pointers being added to the denominator of FG percentage in 2024. That's literally it.

You can have every single component part to overall shooting percentages by superior, but still end up with similar FG percentages. A common reference point (like 75 percent FT shooting, 50 percent on 2s, etc...) carries meaningfully different information between those two cases.

Drug A: cures 70/100 males (70pt) and 20/100 females (20pt) (90/200 people total, 45 percent)
Drug B: cures 40/50 males (80pt) and 40/150 females (27pt) (80/200 people total, 40 percent)

Drug B does better for both males and females, but has a lower overall percentage simply as a function of having more of a low success rate group (females) relative to males.

FG percentages are the same (roughly) between the old and modern game, but simply as a function of the modern game having more of a low success event (threes) relative to twos.

Precisely why I look at 2PT / 3PT / FT's independently, as opposed to lumping them all together into some arbitrary, made-up formula just to come up with a "guess".

Well guess what? I don't need to "guess" when I have the players' EXACT %'s easily at my disposal, yielding FACTUAL data about their production and efficiency:

Overall
Malone: 11.1 FG's on 19.8 Attempts / .562%
Giannia: 11.2 FG's on 20.3 Attempts / .553%

2PT
Malone: 11.0 Made of 19.3 Attempts / .567%
Giannis: 10.5 Made of 17.8 Attempts / .596%

3PT
Malone: 0.2 Made of 0.5 Attempts / .372%
Giannis: 0.7 Made of 2.7 Attempts / .245%

FT
Malone: 8.5 Made on 11.1 FTA
Giannis: 7.9 Made on 12.3 FTA

There it is, black and white, clear as day FACTUAL results... no guesses or hunches, no speculation, no made-up formulas using arbitrary numbers and random equations, etc.

All I need to know about the 2 players is right there from their Raw stats... I don't need made-up stats, and neither does any astute hoops fan who understands the game.

Thank you very much.

[_Vcsgrizzfan_]

Arithmetic can be challenging for some.

CLEARLY you struggle with it, which is why you need all those made-up formula's to help you interpret basic stats, fool.

I hit a nerve. No dude. I like to have a nuanced understanding of things I study. You're too intransigent and lack the capacity to look at better quality data. But stuff like per 100 possessions and per 36 minutes isn't even a "formula", for chrissakes. It is simple arithmetic.

More advanced stats like TS% require a bit more understanding of statistics, but a pretty nominal amount. I'll grant you they aren't simple arithmetic, but struggling with the relevance of per 36 minutes and per 100 possessions and understanding how they can add color to analysis.... well.. that just means you're stupid.

[Robceltsfan]

TDK literally using Malone's most efficient year he ever had to "prove a point".....while picking Giannis' 6th most efficient year to compare it to.

That's his "EXACT", "FACTUAL" data.

[_Vcsgrizzfan_]

Not to change the subject too much, but what always stands out with Malone is how his efficiency shit the bed in the playoffs. A freaking PF, and his field goal % goes from a nice 51.6% in the regular season to an awful (for a PF taking a lot of shots) 46% in the playoffs. No wonder him and Stockton got bounced in the first round so often and made so few finals.

[Robceltsfan]

I bet TDK thinks Karl Malone is better than Lebron.

[Havlicekstealsit]

I bet TDK thinks Karl Malone is better than Lebron.

From a durability standpoint, I'd say yes. And child rape.

[Bush4Ever.]

TDK literally using Malone's most efficient year he ever had to "prove a point".....while picking Giannis' 6th most efficient year to compare it to.

That's his "EXACT", "FACTUAL" data.

I started the comparison.

But the only point was to illustrate how quantity of possessions can influence per-game volume totals.

I didn't think that would be particularly controversial, but here we are

[thedangerouskitchen]

So ITT we've learned 1) Rob doesn't read posts prior to injecting his two-cents in the middle of an exchange that did not involve him - he's taken a page out of grizz's book, basically), and 2) astute hoops fans (like TDK) draw almost the exact same conclusions (using only raw stats, intelligence, common sense, perspective and context) as the "modern analysts" (ie; LeTots and Modern Era lovers) conclude using extensive formulas, charts, graphs and long disserations.

[Da Stars.]

I am better at LeBron. At something.

[Titan18]

Too long didn’t read but I’ll assume this was the end conclusion

Jordan=ANT>>>>Lebron

[thedangerouskitchen]

Too long didn’t read but I’ll assume this was the end conclusion

Jordan=ANT>>>>Lebron

Actually bush is defending Karl Malone over Giannis ITT... so... Malone > Jordan and Giannis >>> LeBron, according to bush.

[Bush4Ever.]

I would defend Malone's 1990 season over Giannis' 2023 season in terms of era-adjusted scoring, yes.

The gains in rate definitely aren't worth the differences in (era-adjusted) efficiency.

I'd hope the best era-adjusted scoring season from one (scoring-lead) legend was better than probably the fifth or sixth best scoring season from another (scoring-lead) legend at the same position.

If it wasn't that would be a problem.

[Da Stars.]

I bet TDK thinks Karl Malone is better than Lebron.

Yes, at losing.

[thedangerouskitchen]

I bet TDK thinks Karl Malone is better than Lebron.

Shooting: Malone
Scoring: LeFraud (slight edge)
Rebounding: Malone
Playmaking: LeFraud
Defense: Wash

It's pretty close, actually.

[_Vcsgrizzfan_]

I bet TDK thinks Karl Malone is better than Lebron.

Shooting: Malone
Scoring: LeFraud (slight edge)
Rebounding: Malone
Playmaking: LeFraud
Defense: Wash

It's pretty close, actually.

God you are a special kind of stupid.