From: tamada@cheshire.oxy.edu (Michael K. Tamada)
Subject: Re: 'Overrated' Tiny Tim
Organization: Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA 90041 USA.
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 07:11:32 GMT

In article <5917@osc.COM> ashwin@osc.osc.com (Ashwin Honkan) writes:

>In Article: 15212 of rec.sport.basketball.pro, iacurtop@ERE.UMontreal.CA 
>(Iacurto Paul) writes:
>
>> HERE ARE SOME INTERESTING THINGS CONCERNING TINY TIM;

   [...]

>> 2 - HARDAWAY IS NOT A GREAT PERCENTAGE SHOOTER
>
>< stuff deleted >
>
>> 3 year average: .469
>
>> He is no Kevin Johnson
>> 3 year average: .498 - or 29 points better
>
>  0.498 - 0.469 = 0.029, or 29 parts in 1000. Just calling it '29 points'
>  doesn't change the facts. 

     Whether we call it 29 points or .029, this is a LARGE difference
in field goal percentage.  Right now, the average team is shooting 
somewhere around 47%.  Add 2.9 percentage points (or 29 points, or
.029) and you get 49.9% -- better than ANY current NBA team.  Subtract
2.9 percentage points and you get 44.1% -- worse than all teams except
Dallas and Detroit.
     In other words, 2.9 percentage points means the difference
between an average team and the best team, and an average team
and the worst teams (best and worse at shooting, that is).
     Any time a player or team is shooting 2.9 percentage points more
than another player or team, that is a LARGE difference.  (The exception
would be mooses like James Donaldson or Mark West who shoot 65% for their
career but typically shoot maybe 4 times a game.  Who cares whether
Mark West shoots 65% or 67.9%, he rarely shoots anyway except for putbacks
and dunks.  So for those guys, 2.9% is not a lot.)
     If Hardaway had added 2.9 percentage points to his FG% last year, he 
would've scored an extra 92 points -- an entire game's worth of scoring!  
These extra points would be worth, on average, almost 3 extra wins for
the Warriors.
     However, I come neither to bury Timmy, nor to praise him.  There
are extenuating circumstances; see below:

>Besides, care to talk about KJ's lack of a 3-pt shot ? 

     This is an important thing to consider.  If someone is shooting
40%, I'd say that's terrible from 2-point land.  But from 3-point land,
it's great.  So in addition the raw FG%, we have to look at how many
3-points a guy makes.  And Hardaway makes quite a few.
     Another point that wasn't mentioned is the number of fouls drawn.
If you shoot only 40% on 2-5 FGs for a game, but draw 12 free throws
and bury 10 of them, you've had an excellent offensive game.  
     Kevin Johnson had an edge here in previous years: he's drawn 500
to 600 free throws a year while Hardaway has drawn less than 400.
However, this season, Hardaway has the edge in drawing fouls.

>> He is no Mark Price
>> 3 year average: .481 - or 12 points better
>
>  ... or Price's limited offensive and assisting ability ?

      Hey, let's not defend Hardaway by making ridiculous attacks
on Mark Price!  "Limited offensive ability" indeed.  Price is the
second leading scorer on a balanced, high-quality offensive
team.  Two years ago, when Price missed almost the entire season,
the Cavs went 33-49.  Last year, with Price playing most of the
year, they went 57-25 and made the conference finals.  And it's
his offense, much more than his defense, that made the Cavs better.
     None of this detracts from the fact that we've basically got
3 premier point guards right now:  (in alphabetical order)  Hardaway,
Price, and Stockton.  The question of who is best depends on what
your team needs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
  |__	       o
  | W			   Mike Tamada
		  |\	   Institutional Research Office
		   \O	   Occidental College
		    |      tamada@oxy.edu
		   /|
		  | |

Newsgroups: rec.sport.basketball.pro