No i'm not either, did you read my other comment if a team shoots 35% from 3 it considered a good game from 3 because that's the league average, their reasoning is the "analytics" say 33% from 3 is equal to 50% from two
Right, I hate this analytics shit, if you ask me, I think that shit is the worst and should never existed. It's really inaccurate information how a player is doing shooting those 3s. Because 2s are just as valuable as 3s.
Yesterday the Rockets shot 34.9 percent which was 15 for 43 shooting 3's.
Missing almost 30 threes when you took 43 is not considered good or OK shooting no matter what they told you.
At least not in my opinion but it is to you and jawnswoopity
Box score for the Houston Rockets vs. San Antonio Spurs NBA game from October 17, 2024 on ESPN. Includes all points, rebounds and steals stats.
www.espn.com
Lol...did you even read our comments both of us clearly said it's terrible but the game is trying to tell us it's not. When the Rockets missed 27 straight 3 pointers in the playoffs a couple years ago some of these basketball experts and some of the people in these comments tried to say the Rockets are a 3 point shooting team so they had no problem with it because it's live by the 3 die by the 3
"the 'analytics' say 33% from 3 is equal to 50% from two"
Guys, correct me if I'm wrong, but what you are calling analytics is... just basic math.
Since the example was the Rockets shooting 15/43, let's round up to looking at 45 shots, for the sake of keeping the math simple.
If they're all two pointers and you shoot 50%, that's 45 points. (44-46 since exactly 50% is impossible on an odd number of shots.)
If they're all three pointers and you shoot 33%, that's 45 points.
That's not shit that "analytics" fans say... It's objectively true-- literal inarguable math.