That is your arbitrary designation. If we are not using the metrics defined by BBR, then the only other method of comparison has always been close to basket (or post), midrange (defined as outside the key), and 3pt (perimeter). Going by this standard, it is STILL not >50%. Your stance only applies if we are completely eschewing the 3pt shot and the only reason one would do that is to make the 2 party argument fit.
No, everyone else is adding arbitrary designations. The comment wasn’t about shots taken “near” the basket, which is vague. The comment specified shots taken “at” the basket, which is pretty darn clear. Clear hyperbole. Saying Mobley takes most of his shots near the rim is defensible. Saying he takes most of his shots AT the rim is not.
You are wrong my friend. Terms like midrange shots vs 3pt shots vs at the rim (dunks/layups) vs free throws are all concretely established terms and comparisons in the game of basketball just like what areas are what on the court, at least where the NBA is concerned. Distances have always been the terms defined by shot tracking metric resources. There is nothing arbitrary about that at all. Trying to call it vague is simply your own arbitrary decision.
You are literally proving my point. Let’s say “at the rim” means dunk/layups. By definition, if you say most of a player’s shots are taken “at the rim,” then, conversely, you are saying more than half of their shots are dunks/layups as compared to all other shots. Now, you can say the highest percentage of a player’s shots are taken at the rim — that’s fine. But you can’t assume qualifiers that aren’t specified. As my criminal law professor said way back on my first day of law school, “Words have meaning.”
There is really no need to argue about the semantic meaning about "most." I made the post just for fun in response to @JayZ750 calling out the stupid argument. The main point, as pointed out, was that Mobley as a big man playing closer to the basket should have higher efficiency but he did not. The quoted tweet was to show that the narrative of Mobley being more efficient than Green did not square with objective data. Scrutinizing the meaning of "most" is a way by the Mobley fans to sidetrack the discussion without giving any substantive argument against the main point.
I agree it's a stupid arguement, a primarily defensive player shouldn't be expected to be a more efficient scorer than a solely offensive player. At the end of the day, Mobley was a net 0 for his team and Green was a net -6 for his team. Neither had a great rookie season but both showed flashes of why they were highly thought of. Mobley will need to start hitting his 3's, Green will have to learn how to be less worthless on defense. It'll be fun to see how far they've progressed when the season starts.
They definitely had great rookie seasons. 19 year old rookies drafted to bottom end teams never have good +/- stats. They still get all rookie honors because everything is relative. Only someone rare like Lebron could possibly have a positive impact at 19.
I wasn't using box score +/- the plus or minus was in regards to how they impacted the team's offensive rating and opposing team's offensive rating when they were on the court compared to when they were off the court. Mobley was a net zero, he helped defensively exactly as much as he hurt offensively. Green was an overall negative to both sides of the court....but he went from a -20 to only -6 so that shows how much he improved over the course of the season. While both are fine for rookie seasons, everyone hoped for more.
Eh name some of the best players in the league who were in the league at 19. How many of them are going to have net positive ratings?
And yes it was a stupid argument, first by the Mobley fan in the tweet calling Green inefficient compared to Mobley, then by the Green fan who said Mobley took most his shots at the rim. Both were wrong. If the Green fan just left it at the TS% then no one would be arguing. and fwiw, considering the types of shots Green took vs Mobley(self created vs assisted), Green’s efficiency was much more impressive. That doesn’t mean you should change around reality and say Mobley took most his shots at the rim just to fit your agenda.
I think you need assistance in understanding a few basic principles. Let me use a simple analogy. There are 10 apples. Sally has 4 apples, John has 3 apples, and Michael has 3 apples. Who has the most apples? Or are you going to say no one has the most apples because no one has more than 5? Let's try this again with shooting range. Mobley attempts 36.4% of his shots between 0-3 feet, 30.7% between 3-10 feet, 14% of his shots between 10-16 feet and 7.5% of his shots from 3. Where does Mobley attempt most of his shots? By the way, that wasn't even my point, 3-10 feet is a shot in the paint. Mobley's average range is shorter than Sengun, is anyone going to argue Sengun was not doing most of his scoring near the basket? Even if you wanted to argue semantically, an average range of 8 feet is still scoring the majority of your point near the basket (Sengun's average range is 9 feet).
As someone already tried to explain, 3-10 feet, 10-15 feet, 15-20 feet etc are arbitrary cut offs that NO ONE brought up in the original argument and tweet. It’s either at the rim, or not at the rim. Otherwise by your definition, someone who takes 34% at the rim, 33% at 16-22 feet, 32% at beyond the 3 would take “most” of his shots at the rim. No dude, 65% of his shots are long jumpers. No one asked you to break long 2s and 3s into separate categories to make it look like he shot more at the rim. Also no one is arguing Mobley doesn’t score near the basket. They said AT THE RIM, which has an actual definition as opposed to something you made up like “near the basket”.
If you want to argue semantics, then the original argument I was responding to is that Mobley converts most of his shots at the rim. Mobley attempts 36.4% of his shots between 0-3 feet at FG 76%, 30.7% between 3-10 feet at FG 38%, 14% of his shots between 10-16 feet at FG 45%, everything else beyond is low volume with a FG below 33%. Where did Mobley attempt most of his shots? And where does he convert most of his shots? Or do you need another kindergarden analogy again?
You are the only one who moved the goal post to “converts”, no one else said that. The tweet that started the argument says “took most his shots at the rim”. Learn to read.
