- Joined
- Sep 16, 2008
- Messages
- 26,226
- Likes
- 14,407
- Points
- 113
In the end, I'd rather have 2.1 for 4.8 3pt shooting than 3.8 for 10.2 3pt shooting. Those are Crabbes and Gordon's 3pt shooting clips per 36 respectively.
Why would I rather have that? Because I'd trust the offense to outperform the additional 1.7 on 5.4 3pt shooting Gordon adds over Crabbe. That's .94 points per shot.
Basically, with Gordon's more aggressive shooting resulted in a 94 ORTG on the additional shots he takes that Crabbe doesn't.
I'd rather have Crabbe's 2.1 for 4.8, then trust that the offense could outperform a 94ORTG over the other 5 possessions where Gordon would've shot shots that Crabbe wouldn't have. Since the team does usually perform at a higher offensive rate than a 94 ORTG suggests, then mathematically, it suggests that Crabbe's efficiency on limited shots is more valuable than Gordon's lesser efficiency on volume shooting.
I feel like most people won't understand the math, but those that do will realize what I've been talking about this whole time.
What is the team's ORtg when no one has an open shot? By this logic, we'd be at our most efficient with a roster full of Allen Crabbes--each of them take 5 wide-open shots, leading to the greatest offense in NBA history. Except, that's not how it works. Crabbe is taking the easy shots that someone else could have handled and leaving the difficult shot-creation to others. Someone still has to take those tough shots that Crabbe can't take.

