With the improved technology and use of analytics I’m sure we can expect shooting percentages in todays NBA to be much improved over their Stone Age counterparts especially considering todays nba is a much softer defensive league which favors offense. BUT, that’s not the case. NBA league overage shooting in the 80’s was 48.5, and 46.4 in the 90’s. So far in the 2020’s (a good 5 plus years of use with Noah) they are shooting 46.6.
Wow this is analytics to another level …Cal getting serious about improved shooting
- Thread starter JST390-2
- Start date
Cat2010 beaten down but still hanging on and trying to land a desperate haymaker.
If Noah just shows a player where his best % shot is it’s worth it. Coaches then can run plays to get the player in his most effective spots.
I’ll test Coach Welch knows what he’s doing with it.
The Noah might be total crap, I just found it funny that someone who has never used it, isnt involved in the specifics of how it’s being used, doesn’t know who on the team is even using it, and isn’t the intended user of it is so incredibly opinionated about it. Just cracks me up is all. It’s like those “I stayed in a holiday inn last night” commercials. It’s just par for the course of how the internet is.
I have no doubt the Noah system is an incredible data gathering machine. My strong opinion is based toward the assumption it will improve one’s shooting which was the premise of the OP.
Dude went off the deep end about something he obviously knows jack shit about. 26 NBA teams use it.
Omg he’s still going 😂 More power to you, I barely have enough confidence about things I use and do regularly. Wish I had your confidence tbh
It's not a fair comparison to use shooting percentage without factoring in that a much larger percent of shots taken in the 2020s are three pointers (compared to the percent of threes taken in the 80s and 90s). Given that so many more of the shots taken are threes, one would expect the shooting percentage to go down. But it barely has. The better comparison would be true shooting percentage, which takes into account the threee point shot.
BS, the 80’s and 90’s offered much tougher defenses to shoot and score against. Todays NBA is a glorified shoot around so don’t give me the it’s not fair crap. Aint buying it.
“Shooting is not that hard”.
Says “cats2010” live from an anonymous internet chat board.
Odds are overwhelming that you weren’t a college basketball player. “Shooting is not that hard” makes you sound like a moron.
Who says I had to play college ball to shoot well. I guarantee you that very few on this board played college ball but still had the ability to shoot the basketball effectively. I played HS and my SR year shot 59% from the field and was a guard. To those who don’t play basketball hell yes shooting is hard, but if you play you know how to shoot to some degree or otherwise you wouldn’t be playing. Still waiting for all the data to show how much this system is helping overall shooting %’s. Saying 26 NBA teams use it doesn’t mean shit. Show me the data that says it’s helping those 26 teams.
In 1 post: “shooting is not that hard”
Next post: “hell yes shooting is hard”
Get yourself under control. You’re all over the place.
Good lord dude. It’s probably hard for you as reading comprehension is as well apparently. I clearly said for those that don’t play the game he’ll yes shooting is hard. Good job misquoting me. Anything that you’re not use to doing will not seem natural and thus hard to do. It really isn’t that complicated but maybe for you it is, so sorry!!!
This is an actual post. I am not an A.I. bot. My strength of thought thinking is all my own. Trajectory of ball hight when factored with reverse gyrational spin plane equal more certitude of completion of metal circle entrance.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
I think it is darn-near certain the playoffs expand.- Latest: ArtLaibsGhost
