# Miami restructures Antoine's contract



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

*Walker thread, take seventhousand...*

...threehundredfiftyseven.

Yes, yes, yes. It is time for another one (yes it is.)

Now I'm the last person to start a Walker thread (thread in general), but this has really been bugging me the past two days. I know I linked the Ryan Gomes signing in another thread, but the title of the article was about Walker and his guaranteed years of his six year deal.

In this article, Shira Springer writes about the Walker deal...not the players we received (although she mentions them as if they're worthy...), but the years that Antoine got from the Heat.

Everyone is constantly complaining that Antoine's six year deal is way too long and that we should offer him somewhere between 3-4 years with options...just like the Heat did, basically.



Shira Springer said:


> (lol)
> 
> Now, the deal is guaranteed for only four years, approximately $30 million, with the final two years being team options.


My only question is, why in the world didn't we offer him something like this? The deal would be under eight million per year for four years and we had the option of resigning him for the other one or two years if Big Al wasn't ready by that time.

If it was six years guaranteed, then there was absolutely no reason for us to resign him, but for only four years, it would have made all the sense in the world.

Danny must have known something about it, since it was a sign and trade, so why didn't he counter with a deal similar? He may have been able to thrown even less money at him for four years since Antoine didn't sign for a very long time.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

*Re: Walker thread, take seventhousand...*



> My only question is, why in the world didn't we offer him something like this?


It was clear that Ainge did not want Walker back in Green. The reason he gave was that it was time to open the door for AJ and see if he is the real deal. He felt Walker would hamper this mainly by needing PF minutes. Beyond that I will not speculate on why Ainge did offer Walker a similar deal - or ehmunro will accuse me of piling it on.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

*Re: Walker thread, take seventhousand...*

We didn't offer him that because Ainge hates Walker and also because the only reason Miami offered Antoine a restructured deal was because he has slight knee problems (you don't want to be paying a injured player ten million dollars when he's 32+; see: Allan Houston).

On a related note here are some posts on the APBRmetrics board about Walker. Interesting stuff.



> Something that could factor into Walker's low efg% is the amount of shots he takes late in a possession. Obviously everyone shoots much worse on buzzer beaters, but Walker takes more of those shots and shoots at a lower percentage than most guys.
> 
> With the Celtics last year, 17% of Walker's shots were with 3 or less seconds on the clock, and he had a .323 eFG% in this period. Ignore those shots, and he had a efg% of .513 (compared to his real percentage of .475) with the Celtics. And it's not like he just dribbles the ball for a long time and forces himself into those bad shots. 67% of those shots were assisted, by far more than the rest of his shots.
> 
> ...


Also, with Antoine on the court, the Celtics commited far less turnovers than without him.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

*Re: Walker thread, take seventhousand...*



> Ignore those shots, and he had a efg% of .513


This really says nothing except "take away a good chunk of his bad shots and his FG% is actually pretty good". And? What happens if you take away his "good" high % shots? His FG% goes down even more. 

Statements like this are useless.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

*Re: Walker thread, take seventhousand...*

How are they useless? Does Antoine dribble around for 21+ seconds and then shoot? No. Stars usually get the ball when a play fails and there is only seconds left on the shot clock. Teammates trusted Antoine with the ball in the final seconds of the shot clock. If Pierce took the same amount of buzzer beating shots as Antoine, his eFG% would drop, too.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

*Re: Walker thread, take seventhousand...*



 Premier said:


> How are they useless? Does Antoine dribble around for 21+ seconds and then shoot? No. Stars usually get the ball when a play fails and there is only seconds left on the shot clock. Teammates trusted Antoine with the ball in the final seconds of the shot clock. If Pierce took the same amount of buzzer beating shots as Antoine, his eFG% would drop, too.


It's useless beacuse you can not just take away facts to improve someones numbers. It's like when people say "take away Shaq's dunks and his FG% goes way down". And?

There are many stars with high(er) FG%. 

And how do you know if Pierce took more buzzer beaters his FG% would go down.

A better way to look at it is look at his FT %. That is a good indication on a guys outside shot. And that has nothing to do with buzzer beaters. Walker shoots about 50% from the line. How can you explain that one away to make it look better?


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

*Re: Walker thread, take seventhousand...*



Causeway said:


> And how do you know if Pierce took more buzzer beaters his FG% would go down.



Well, the fact that his aFG% goes down to .432 in the last three seconds of the shot clock is a dead giveaway.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

*Re: Walker thread, take seventhousand...*

You're are missing the point of that post.

He is saying that because Antoine is forced into taking bad shots by his teammates (is he just going to hold it and be called for a violation, no. He's going to shoot it because no one else will), his eFG% takes a hit. If Antoine wasn't *forced* into taking these shots, his eFG% would rise. This is true with many stars (Ray Allen, Shaq, Tim Duncan, LeBron). 

Pierce's eFG% would decline simply because buzzer beaters aren't efficient shots. How do you not understand this? It's quite simple.

Listen, I'm not apologizing for Antoine's poor shot-selection and FG%. I'm trying to shed light on why Antoine shoots poorly, not *just* because he is a bad shooter (he's average, in my opinion) but somewhat because he is given the ball at difficult times.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

*Re: Walker thread, take seventhousand...*

So the argument is that Antoines teammates - in Boston, Dallas and Atlanta - *force* and trust Walker into taking these shots? And they *force* and trust Walker more than Pierce? Or Dirk?

I don't buy it.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

*Re: Walker thread, take seventhousand...*

Let's put it this way.

Somehow Walker ends up with the ball with three seconds left on the shot clock more than anybody on the team (moreso than players who play more than him like Paul Pierce). Let's just say that we don't know how this happens, but it does. It is understood that shooting with not a lot of time left on the shot clock leads to a poor eFG%. Thus, resulting in Antoine's poor eFG%.

It is simple. You are making it harder to understand than it really is.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

*Re: Walker thread, take seventhousand...*

I get it but the post and point is trying to take the blame off of Walker place it on his teammates and improve his eFG%. Over the course of a career patterns develop and generally over the course of a career things don't "just happen". 

Bottom line is that Walker is a poor shooter.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

*Re: Walker thread, take seventhousand...*

No one is blaming the teammates. Someone has to take the shot. It just so happens to be Antoine.

Okay, this should be easy to understand.

Player A's eFG% is .45
Player B's eFG% is .5

Player A takes all of the teams shots with less than three seconds left on the shot clock. Player B takes none.

These players, to me, are even shooters as Player A is taking harder shots while Player B doesn't have to.

Hope that clears it up.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

*Re: Walker thread, take seventhousand...*

Again I get it. But again I think it's a BS way to make Walker's #'s look better. It just so happens that Walker ends up with the ball in the last few seconds of the shot clock and is *forced* to take a shot? More than Pierce? And many other stars? I don't think it just happens.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

*Re: Walker thread, take seventhousand...*

The same happens with other stars. Why is Ray Allen always looked as a great shooter yet his FG% is low?


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

*Re: Walker thread, take seventhousand...*

Because Ray Allen shoots almost 90% from the FT line. This generally is agreed as a good indicator of a players outside shot.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

*Re: Walker thread, take seventhousand...*

FT% has barely anything to do with this. If you want a FG% that incorporates free throws, check out TS%.

How many free throws have you attempted with a hand in your face?


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

*Re: Walker thread, take seventhousand...*

Exactly. Since you are arguing that a big reason for Walkers eFG is because he is "*forced*" to shoot shots at the end of the clock - as I asked earlier - why does Walker shoot about 50% from the FT line?

And my point is that the bottom line is that Walker is a poor shooter.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Causeway said:


> May I reiterate that I hate Walker and want the Celtics' kids to learn the game the right way from Scalabrine, a power forward that plays the game the way it was meant to be played, chucking up threes from the perimeter and only rebounding in a contract year.


See how much better that works? You've wasted 13 responses in this thread and all you've said is that. Just make that your standing contribution to threads like this.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

ehmunro said:


> May I reiterate that not only do I make things up because I really don't have much to add to thread. Or much really of value to say. But at least I think I am witty like the guys on Sportscenter - my favorite show. Doesn't that have some value even if it has nothing to do with the thread?


See how much better that works? You've wasted responses in this thread and all you've said is that. Just make that your standing contribution to the board like this.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

*Re: Walker thread, take seventhousand...*



Causeway said:


> Exactly. Since you are arguing that a big reason for Walkers eFG is because he is "*forced*" to shoot shots at the end of the clock - as I asked earlier - why does Walker shoot about 50% from the FT line?


Why does this matter?

Perhaps you aren't listening. *I am not apologizing for Antoine's poor shooting percentages*. I am merely showing that his eFG% and TS% are misleading due to the amount of shots he takes with less than three seconds left on the shot clock.


----------



## LX (Oct 14, 2004)

*Re: Walker thread, take seventhousand...*

Quite frankly, these stats don't prove a damn thing about Walker. All you have to do is watch him play to come away with the fact that he is a poor shooter, and even worse decision maker. All you're doing is twisting stats to try and explain the fact that Walker is a below average scorer.

I'm expecting your next post to try and incoporate body fat % or Antoine's SAT scores from high school, into why he's not a bad player.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

*Re: Walker thread, take seventhousand...*

I said they were meant to prove anything? If you cannot draw conclusions from the original post, you're to blinded by your hate of anything that has to do with Walker.

Antoine a bad player? Since when do they let bad players on the all-star team?

Also, it's pretty cool that the only time you post here is when you get a chance to bash Antoine Walker.


----------



## LX (Oct 14, 2004)

*Re: Walker thread, take seventhousand...*



Premier said:


> I said they were meant to prove anything? If you cannot draw conclusions from the original post, you're to blinded by your hate of anything that has to do with Walker.
> 
> Antoine a bad player? Since when do they let bad players on the all-star team?
> 
> Also, it's pretty cool that the only time you post here is when you get a chance to bash Antoine Walker.


Will you get over yourself? Seriously. 

Walker hasn't been an all-star in three years, and probably never will be again. Big friggin whoop that he shoots so and so % with less than 3 seconds on the clock. WHO CARES? He still takes plenty of shots that he has absolutely no business taking and are completely ill-advised. 

And maybe I would post more if every topic wasn't based on some crazy far-fetched stat formula that you've conjured up.

Here's a crazy idea. Let's STOP talking about Walker. He is no longer a Celtic, it's pointless to discuss anything that he has or hasn't done as a Celtic.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

*Re: Walker thread, take seventhousand...*




Lanteri said:


> Walker hasn't been an all-star in three years, and probably never will be again.


The all-star statement was a response to your comment that Antoine was a "bad" player. Fine, "bad" players do not average sixteen points, eight rebounds, and three assists every night.



> He still takes plenty of shots that he has absolutely no business taking and are completely ill-advised.


Once again, I am not apologizing for Antoine's poor shooting tendency. I am merely pointing out an interesting fact about Antoine's shooting percentages.

Oh and I'm sorry that you may be too dense to objectively see the paramountcy of a properly used statistic.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Causeway said:


> See how much better that works? You've wasted responses in this thread and all you've said is that. Just make that your standing contribution to the board like this.


See? You can't even manage originality.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

ehmunro said:


> See? You can't even manage originality.


Thanks for another great on topic post. Did you check my spelling and grammer again as well? You are more worried about other posters than actually talking about hoops. Yes that is original.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

*Re: Walker thread, take seventhousand...*



Lanteri said:


> Quite frankly, these stats don't prove a damn thing about Walker. All you have to do is watch him play to come away with the fact that he is a poor shooter, and even worse decision maker. All you're doing is twisting stats to try and explain the fact that Walker is a below average scorer.
> 
> I'm expecting your next post to try and incoporate body fat % or Antoine's SAT scores from high school, into why he's not a bad player.


 exactly.


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

*Re: Walker thread, take seventhousand...*



> I'm expecting your next post to try and incoporate body fat % or Antoine's SAT scores from high school, into why he's not a bad player.


I don't care whose side you're on, that was worth a chuckle.

As for Walker, I don't see what there is to argue about. He's a poor shooter who makes poor decisions. I don't need eFG% to tell me that.


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

W's and L's. I don't need any stats to tell me any different...and btw...check out my next thread:

Antoine Walker-Player profile. MUAHAHAHAHA.

So uh...why not resign Walker for a 4 year deal instead of 6?


----------



## agoo (Jun 1, 2003)

*Re: Walker thread, take seventhousand...*



Lanteri said:


> Will you get over yourself? Seriously.
> 
> Walker hasn't been an all-star in three years, and probably never will be again. Big friggin whoop that he shoots so and so % with less than 3 seconds on the clock. WHO CARES? He still takes plenty of shots that he has absolutely no business taking and are completely ill-advised.
> 
> ...


So should we just ignore the entire history of the Boston Celtics beginning with yesterday?

Also, Premier used the word paramountcy and no one else gave him kudos.


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: Walker thread, take seventhousand...*



agoo101284 said:


> So should we just ignore the entire history of the Boston Celtics beginning with yesterday?
> 
> Also, Premier used the word paramountcy and no one else gave him kudos.


Taken care off...


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Causeway said:


> Thanks for another great on topic post. Did you check my spelling and grammer again as well? You are more worried about other posters than actually talking about hoops. Yes that is original.


I'm sorry, but if posts like _this_...



Causeway said:


> Because Ray Allen shoots almost 90% from the FT line. This generally is agreed as a good indicator of a players outside shot.


...count as "serious" hoops talk, may we have no "serious" hoops discussion at all, and instead let threads melt into frivolous discussions of shot mechanics, shooting efficiency and shot creation. I understand that such lightweight discussions are far beneath your monumental knowledge of the game, so pray, do not let us waste your valuable time.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

Why are you quoting "serious"? Once again you put quotes when quoting no one. ehmunro - our resident Stuart "Booyah" Scott. Full of meaningless one liners.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

I'm sorry if the statistical analysis is too complicated for you.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

You are correct. It's simple. Actually we could use the same formula for you. Take away your useless Stuart Scott "Booyah" type posts and you actually have a good ePost rating. Of course that does not leave too many posts.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Let's stop with the spewing of insults towards fellow posters and get back on topic.

Antoine Walker > Tim Duncan


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

> In the 14 games that West saw more than spot duty he averaged 9.6 points on .477 shooting from the field and and .386 shooting from beyond the arc, racking up an unimpressive 2.4 assists per game and compiling an anemic .206 FTA/FGA as the Celtics went 8-6.


10ppg on those percentages is actually very respectable for the minutes he played. I don't see what your beef is. His low assist #'s? Hopefully he worked on being an actual PG this offseason instead of a 2-guard...hopefully Banks did too.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Shall we make another Banks vs. West topic?

Once again, let's discuss Antoine Walker in what's left of this thread.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Causeway said:


> You are correct. It's simple. Actually we could use the same formula for you. Take away your useless Stuart Scott "Booyah" type posts and you actually have a good ePost rating. Of course that does not leave too many posts.


See? You still can't manage originality.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

Premier said:


> Let's stop with the spewing of insults towards fellow posters and get back on topic.
> 
> Antoine Walker > Tim Duncan





ehmunro said:


> See? You still can't manage originality.


See? You still can't manage to read.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

P-Dub34 said:


> 10ppg on those percentages is actually very respectable for the minutes he played. I don't see what your beef is. His low assist #'s? Hopefully he worked on being an actual PG this offseason instead of a 2-guard...hopefully Banks did too.


Actually, our G-2 poster has cribbed Peter May's disingenuous statement about West as his sig line (trying to imply that West's starts were responsible for the Celtics winning). I was just trying to inject a little sanity, when West played extended minutes the Celtics were a just over .500 team, not the powerhouse May's implying.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Causeway said:


> See? You still can't manage to read.


Not only can I read, I can perform basic mathematical calculations. This is why I can discuss statistical analysis with the more intelligent posters on this board. You eschew statistics, can't engage in serious analytical conversations of the game because you don't seem to pay attention to what's going on out there on the court (witness your gushing over Veal, aka ****** Antoine). You've said some alarmingly ill informed things on this thread, like



Causeway said:


> And how do you know if Pierce took more buzzer beaters his FG% would go down.


When it was pointed out that Pierce's aFG% does indeed go down in the last seconds of the shot clock you ran off to claim that the public in general judges a player's shooting ability by their free throw percentage. For example, when Premier asked you why Ray Allen is considered a great shooter despite his FG%...



Causeway said:


> Because Ray Allen shoots almost 90% from the FT line. This generally is agreed as a good indicator of a players outside shot.


That may be why _you_ consider him a great shot, or more correctly why you've claimed that you consider him a great shot because I sincerely doubt that you've ever even looked at his FG%. The correct answer is that FG% is like baseball's batting average, it's a stat that obfuscates more than it illustrates. Despite a mediocre FG% last year (.428), his aFG% & eFG% numbers are extremely good (.498 & .555). _That's_ why he's considered a great shooter, not because of his free throws. 

To me it looks like you're angry because you don't seem to know a whole lot about this game, and you want us to discuss this game on your level. Guess what? Most of us feel the same way, if you want to discuss this seriously do your homework and bring something to the table other than your hatred of Walker. Hating Walker doesn't prove that you know anything about basketball here in the major leagues. If you want to go to a scrub board like Celtic-Nation.com, you can start a thread called "Antoine is the Anti-Christ" and the race-baiters will praise your knowledge. Since that's apparently what you want you may want to give them a try.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

I will answer your babble with this:

I have no desire or intention to impress you. I do not come to this site to impress you. Walker threads come up in here all the time. Most times not started by me. If you have a problem with the fact that I am not a fan of Walkers game - tough crap. You do not think I am intelligent because I do not think that taking away Walkers shots at the end of the shot clock really prooves anything of value? I could care less. You want to comment when I mis-type something or spell check my posts? Go ahead. 

You seem obsessed with my posts. Enjoy them because I am not going away.

Until a moderator let's me know that me discussing Walker or any other player for that matter is out of line with the community standards I will continue to do so.

To me it looks like your an elitist. This is an open forum.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

ehmunro, I wouldn't fault him entirely on his claim that free throw percentages give us a indication of shooting ability as Allen's free throw ability does play a part in his superb TS% which does incorporate free throws. While using free throw percentages as a main indication of shooting ability isn't quite smart, using it to help strengthen your argument isn't too bad, in my opinion.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Premier said:


> ehmunro, I wouldn't fault him entirely on his claim that free throw percentages give us a indication of shooting ability as Allen's free throw ability does play a part in his superb TS% which does incorporate free throws. While using free throw percentages as a main indication of shooting ability isn't quite smart, using it to help strengthen your argument isn't too bad, in my opinion.


If he were using free throw shooting that way, perhaps, but he isn't. He made the claim that people consider Allen to be a great jump shooter because of his free throw shooting, ignoring for the moment that a free throw isn't a jump shot (nobody explain that to him, please), did you ever consider Ray Allen a great jump shooter because of his free throw shooting ability? Does anyone? You made a half hearted attempt to discuss a statistical oddity, I don't even like Walker and even I wondered about the whole matter (because it worries me that the rest of the team deferred to Walker to that extent in those circumstances). But you can't have intelligent conversations like that with him around because he immediately leaped in to blunder about and repeatedly post "I hate Walker" stuff. Absent a troll like that, it might have been a fun subject to analyse. But any such discussion was stillborn. And that's really going to be the case with him on a regular basis. He doesn't want to have intelligent conversations because he can't negotiate the waters of statistical analysis, and he gets angry when we don't take him seriously. But he doesn't want to do the homework necessary to be taken seriously.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Causeway said:


> You want to comment when I mis-type something or spell check my posts? Go ahead.


So when you claimed that Pierce's aFG% wouldn't go down if he took more last second shots you mistyped? Or was in this regard to your Ray Allen nonsense?



Causeway said:


> To me it looks like your an elitist.


My "an elitist"?


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

You two are boring the hell out of me, why not PM each other? :clown:

ehmunro

Causeway

And are, as always, throwing insults at each other because you don't agree with what the other has to say. 

Why not play a nice game of RPG?


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

ehmunro said:


> did you ever consider Ray Allen a great jump shooter because of his free throw shooting ability? Does anyone?.


Not solely because of his free throw shooting. But guys that can shoot FT's are generally good shooters. And when you see that Antoine shoots 50% from the stripe, it is an indication that he shouldn't be shooting 25 footers when he can't hit a FT. It's indicative of a player's shooting ability, although not the only measuring stick.



> My "an elitist"?


No offense, but I get that vibe from you as well.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

P-Dub34 said:


> No offense, but I get that vibe from you as well.


None taken, you're an intelligent poster that discusses basketball seriously. He isn't, and is angry that he doesn't get taken seriously. 



P-Dub34 said:


> But guys that can shoot FT's are generally good shooters. And when you see that Antoine shoots 50% from the stripe, it is an indication that he shouldn't be shooting 25 footers when he can't hit a FT. It's indicative of a player's shooting ability, although not the only measuring stick.


There's a correlation, but it isn't a strong one. Tim Duncan has become a decent mid range shooter while being a terrible free throw shooter in alternate years. But, really, you consider Ray Allen a great jumpshooter because of his free throw shooting? Because most everyone I know considers him a great shooter because of his proficiency with the trey (which is the reason that his FG% was so mediocre last year). It was a pretty obvious question that Premier asked.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

aquaitious said:


> Why not play a nice game of RPG?


What the heck is RPG? And why would I do something that takes away from useful pursuits, like watching game tape or downloading mp3s?



aquaitious said:


> And are, as always, throwing insults at each other because you don't agree with what the other has to say.


Oh, please, he began throwing insults around at other posters long before I showed up. And my first post wasn't an insult at all, I simply pointed out that Pierce indeed shot worse in the last three seconds of the shotclock. He took a break from his Walker-cursing to toss a few my way. I merely fired back, can I help it that my gun is generally loaded?


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

P-Dub34 said:


> Not solely because of his free throw shooting. But guys that can shoot FT's are generally good shooters. And when you see that Antoine shoots 50% from the stripe, it is an indication that he shouldn't be shooting 25 footers when he can't hit a FT. It's indicative of a player's shooting ability, although not the only measuring stick.


It is one of the worst ways to indicate shooting ability. If you use this along with eFG% and eFG% for jump shots (of course, you have to objectively view each statistic as their is no perfect statistic), then it would be all right.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Let's _attempt _(once again) to get back on topic.

Why is it that Antoine attempts more shots than Pierce with three seconds left on the shot clock? Since it is quite commonly known that Antoine is a poor shooter, why would teammates give him the ball late in the shot clock and not Pierce, who obviously is a better shooter (and a better player in general). Pierce is always tagged as the clutch player, but then why is Antoine attempting so much of these shots for a so-called terrible player late in the game (cluch shots)?


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Also, ehmunro, aFG% isn't my most favored of statistics when discussing shooting ability. There is too much flaws and there are slightly better statistics like TS% and PSA (which measures efficiency like aFG%). For example, if a player attempts three three pointers in a game and making one of them while attempting no free throws, his aFG% would be 50%. Of course it is better than FG%, but once again I prefer other stats.

An interesting stat is cFG%, created field goals in which assisted field goals and field goals coming before five seconds after an offensive rebound aren't counted. It measures a players ability to create a shot. Marcus Banks was among the leagues leaders in '03-'04.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

I use both aFG% and eFG%, the former strictly for shot mechanics. FG% is a worthless stat, it doesn't tell me much about a player's pure shooting, while aFG% does. Now, it doesn't tell me much about how efficiently they use their shots because slashers draw a lot of fouls (and the NBA really should start tracking how many times players are fouled per game, because that's an extremely valuable untracked stat), and eFG% is a much better measure of how efficiently a player shoots. But both aFG% and eFG% have their place in a conversation about shooting.


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

> It is one of the worst ways to indicate shooting ability.


Who was the last guy to shoot 50% from the stripe and be a Ray Allen caliber outside shooter? If the guy can't hit a FT, he probably can't shoot 25 footers. That's all I'm saying.


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

> Let's attempt (once again) to get back on topic.
> 
> Why is it that Antoine attempts more shots than Pierce with three seconds left on the shot clock? Since it is quite commonly known that Antoine is a poor shooter, why would teammates give him the ball late in the shot clock and not Pierce, who obviously is a better shooter (and a better player in general). Pierce is always tagged as the clutch player, but then why is Antoine attempting so much of these shots for a so-called terrible player late in the game (cluch shots)?


When he came to Boston, he had more of those shots than Paul? Surprising. Of course, with the Hawks, who else is gonna shoot? But with the C's, it's a mystery why they didn't defer to Paul as much.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

P-Dub34 said:


> Who was the last guy to shoot 50% from the stripe and be a Ray Allen caliber outside shooter? If the guy can't hit a FT, he probably can't shoot 25 footers. That's all I'm saying.


So? Just because this _may_ be true, free throws do not have much to do with shooting ability. A free throw is a set shot in which you do not have a hand in your face and you can take as much time as you please. Marcus Banks is a good free throw shooter yet he is a poor outside shooter.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

P-Dub34 said:


> When he came to Boston, he had more of those shots than Paul? Surprising. Of course, with the Hawks, who else is gonna shoot? *But with the C's, it's a mystery why they didn't defer to Paul as much.*


Well, this was my point when I first posted in the thread. If Pierce shot the amount of clutch shots as Walker, his shooting percentages would take a major hit, like Walkers. 

*I know Walker is a bad shooter. That is not the point (once again).*


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

Premier said:


> Well, this was my point when I first posted in the thread. If Pierce shot the amount of clutch shots as Walker, his shooting percentages would take a major hit, like Walkers.
> 
> *I know Walker is a bad shooter. That is not the point (once again).*


But Antoine is a horrible shooter.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Is it wrong to lock a thread just because I'm frustrated and cannot get my point across?

Someone please PM cpaw.

:clown:


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

Premier said:


> Is it wrong to lock a thread just because I'm frustrated and cannot get my point across?
> 
> Someone please PM cpaw.
> 
> :clown:


Someone call a mod...


----------



## LX (Oct 14, 2004)

I think we should move this thread to the EBB forum, because I don't see anything resembling basketball in here. :biggrin:


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

P-Dub34 said:


> Who was the last guy to shoot 50% from the stripe and be a Ray Allen caliber outside shooter? If the guy can't hit a FT, he probably can't shoot 25 footers. That's all I'm saying.



(cough) Bruce Bowen (cough)


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Lanteri said:


> I think we should move this thread to the EBB forum, because I don't see anything resembling basketball in here. :biggrin:


Aside from the continous insulting of each other, there has been very good basketball discussion in this thread.

Let me repost my question.

Why do teammates defer to Antoine over Pierce for clutch shots?


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

#1AntoineWalkerFan said:


> (cough) Bruce Bowen (cough)


He shoots, HE SCORES!!!!! GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAL :biggrin:


----------



## LX (Oct 14, 2004)

Premier said:


> Aside from the continous insulting of each other, there has been very good basketball discussion in this thread.
> 
> Let me repost my question.
> 
> Why do teammates defer to Antoine over Pierce for clutch shots?


Who cares?

Give me a minute and I'll go tap my resources and personally contact every player that played with Walker and ask them why they gave him the ball.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

The Department of Homeland Security.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Premier said:


> Why do teammates defer to Antoine over Pierce for clutch shots?


I have been thinking about this and the only thing I can come up with is the thought that they're overly impressed by Walker's tendency to hit those circus shots, those fallaway threes that have no right going anywhere near the basket. But there has to be more than that, because if that's all that's driving them to give the ball up to Walker then our team is too impressionable.


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

ehmunro said:


> I have been thinking about this and the only thing I can come up with is the thought that they're overly impressed by Walker's tendency to hit those circus shots, those fallaway threes that have no right going anywhere near the basket. But there has to be more than that, because if that's all that's driving them to give the ball up to Walker then our team is too impressionable.



Well it could be, but it could also be because Walker is the most likely player to take the blame, and it never appears that he minds. The guy has been tortured his first few years here, so anything that happens(ed) now(then) it really couldn't have been any worse. He's the kind of guy that isn't afraid to take that low percetange shot, even if he does get hated for it.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Lanteri said:


> Who cares?
> 
> Give me a minute and I'll go tap my resources and personally contact every player that played with Walker and ask them why they gave him the ball.


Honestly, do you really contribute anything to this forum anymore? Consiering this thread has recieved the most interest of all the threads in recent memory, I think plenty of people care.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Well, the most obvious conclusion I can come up with is that during this time (when there is three or less seconds left on the shot clock), Pierce is probably heavily guarded and it would be hard to find him a shot. Walker would be guarded man on man and he would find a way to get open and attempt a shot.

I'm going to look at some data to confirm how much more of these shots Walker attempts than Pierce.


----------



## LX (Oct 14, 2004)

Premier said:


> Honestly, do you really contribute anything to this forum anymore? Consiering this thread has recieved the most interest of all the threads in recent memory, I think plenty of people care.


He's not a Celtic anymore. It's in the past, and it has no effect on the team anymore. 

You can't measure why a team tends to differ to certain players by a statistic.

And fine, I don't contribute anything anymore? I'll go post my resignation and stop posting in the Celtics forum if that's how you feel.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Antoine Walker attempts 2.6 clutch shots (<3 seconds left on the shot clock).

Paul Pierce attempts 1.49 clutch shots (<3 seconds left on the shot clock).

Pierce shots +/- 10% better. Why is that?


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Lanteri said:


> He's not a Celtic anymore. It's in the past, and it has no effect on the team anymore.


So, if I want to discuss something about him *exclusively* with Celtics fans, how would I go about doing that? PM?



> You can't measure why a team tends to differ to certain players by a statistic.


Am I trying to?



> And fine, I don't contribute anything anymore? I'll go post my resignation and stop posting in the Celtics forum if that's how you feel.


No, that is not how I feel. It seems that recently whenever you post here, you are bashing something I've posted without looking at the analyitical thought behind it. I never have soley posted a statistic without drawing some conclusions behind it.


----------



## LX (Oct 14, 2004)

Premier said:


> Am I trying to?


What would you call what you're doing now?



Premier said:


> No, that is not how I feel. It seems that recently whenever you post here, you are bashing something I've posted without looking at the analyitical thought behind it. I never have soley posted a statistic without drawing some conclusions behind it.


Quite frankly all these crazy stat formulas that you keep posting are pretty darn boring. There's other ways to discuss the Celtics with like opinions and stuff. Personally I don't like walking into every thread and seeing some obscure stat formula that I've never heard of before (and probably for a good reason). That's just me though, I don't speak for anyone else. And probably shouldn't as it seems a lot of people are interested in what you have to say.

Though in this situation, where somehow a thread about Antoine restructuring his contract turns into Antoine's clutch shooting doesn't make a lot of sense to me.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Lanteri said:


> What would you call what you're doing now?


Actually, I'm not using statistics. It is a fact that Antoine shoots more of these shots than Pierce. I'm trying to explain *why* this happens. I've not used a statistic to explain this. I did offer an explanation that Pierce is heavily guarded during this time, unlike Antoine.



> Quite frankly all these crazy stat formulas that you keep posting are pretty darn boring. There's other ways to discuss the Celtics with like opinions and stuff.


Since when do I use crazy stat formulas? The shot-clock thread? One could draw conclusions from that, as I did. There is analytical thought behind every statistic that I post.



> Personally I don't like walking into every thread and seeing some obscure stat formula that I've never heard of before (and probably for a good reason). That's just me though, I don't speak for anyone else. And probably shouldn't as it seems a lot of people are interested in what you have to say.


Before the last week or so, the Celtics forum was performing at a record-level. Also, considering this thread has 75+ replies, I think people aren't "turned off" by statistics. My Vince Carter or Paul Pierce thread in the Nets forum, where I based most of my argument on statistics recieved 300+ replies.



> Though in this situation, where somehow a thread about Antoine restructuring his contract turns into Antoine's clutch shooting doesn't make a lot of sense to me.


Actually, this is a Walker thread plain and simple. The title of the thread was changed to make the thread topic more relevant to the current topics of the NBA.


----------



## banner17 (Jun 28, 2003)

Premier said:


> Why do teammates defer to Antoine over Pierce for clutch shots?



Because Antoine is the only player on the team that has been a leader and has had any resemblence of BALLS since the Bird era. 

Like him or hate him - I've done both - he's the greatest Celtic since Bird hung up his shoes because of his heart and tenacity. I say this knowing his short comings. The guy f'n bled green every time he put on the uniform. You can't say the same thing about head gear Paul for a second. Because of that, teamates have defered to Antoine. I'd do the same if I was on the court. I'd give the ball to the leader of the team.

letting him go was a mistake. he was a true Celtic. I can't say the same thing about Paul


----------



## Truth34 (May 28, 2003)

I think the Celtics might have been well to sign Antoine to a one-year, $10 million dollar deal. More than one year would have been STUPID and would have hurt Big Al's development.

Also, I think trying to say Antoine is a good shooter is absurd. Causeway brings up a good point. Look at him missing layups and free throws....

Best of luck to Antoine...he got a nice deal...and so did we. 

I can't wait to play the Heat.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

banner17 said:


> Because Antoine is the only player on the team that has been a leader and has had any resemblence of BALLS since the Bird era.
> 
> Like him or hate him - I've done both - he's the greatest Celtic since Bird hung up his shoes because of his heart and tenacity. I say this knowing his short comings. The guy f'n bled green every time he put on the uniform. You can't say the same thing about head gear Paul for a second. Because of that, teamates have defered to Antoine. I'd do the same if I was on the court. I'd give the ball to the leader of the team.
> 
> letting him go was a mistake. he was a true Celtic. I can't say the same thing about Paul


I wouldn't say this is the reason. I think teammates passed to whoever was open and that turned out to be Antoine, although you bring up an interesting and controversial point.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Truth34 said:


> I think the Celtics might have been well to sign Antoine to a one-year, $10 million dollar deal. More than one year would have been STUPID and would have hurt Big Al's development.


That would've put the Celtics in the luxury tax. Also, Al Jefferson can still get 25+ minutes if he's not starting as a backup. Plus, he is atleast two years away. Jefferson has many flaws in his game.



> Also, I think trying to say Antoine is a good shooter is absurd. Causeway brings up a good point. Look at him missing layups and free throws....


Who said he is a good shooter. *In my opinion*, he is a slightly below average shooter *at best*. I wouldn't argue that he is a poor shooter.

Determining he is a poor shooter soley off missed layups and free throws, though, is very unintelligent if I may say.


----------



## Truth34 (May 28, 2003)

OK, 

Then he's bad at every shot except for the crazy runners and such. Seriously, is there a shot he can consistently hit?


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

ehmunro said:


> If he were using free throw shooting that way, perhaps, but he isn't. He made the claim that people consider Allen to be a great jump shooter because of his free throw shooting, ignoring for the moment that a free throw isn't a jump shot (nobody explain that to him, please), did you ever consider Ray Allen a great jump shooter because of his free throw shooting ability? Does anyone?


guys that can shoot FT's are generally good shooters. 



ehmunro said:


> But you can't have intelligent conversations like that with him around because he immediately leaped in to blunder about and repeatedly post "I hate Walker" stuff. Absent a troll like that, it might have been a fun subject to analyse.


again with your name calling. you really are an elitist. I never once said "I hate Walker". In fact I don't hate Walker. Although I do hate his game. And again if you have a problem with that - tough crap.



ehmunro said:


> But any such discussion was stillborn. And that's really going to be the case with him on a regular basis. He doesn't want to have intelligent conversations because he can't negotiate the waters of statistical analysis, and he gets angry when we don't take him seriously. But he doesn't want to do the homework necessary to be taken seriously.


"he can't negotiate the waters of statistical analysis"?? Yeah this is heavy stuff! It's impressive how smart you are to get it. The thread is on how if you take away his shots at the end of a shot clock his FG% goes up. That's deep! 



ehmunro said:


> and he gets angry when we don't take him seriously. But he doesn't want to do the homework necessary to be taken seriously.


I am not angry. Although it's annoying that you continue to misquote me as some sort of joke. And it's annoying that anytime I comment on Walker you chime in with the deep statistical analysis of: "you just hate Walker. Hater"! The depth of your knowledge is impressive.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

ehmunro said:


> None taken, you're an intelligent poster that discusses basketball seriously. He isn't, and is angry that he doesn't get taken seriously.


Your opinion of me truly means nothing to me. You don't take me seriously? 99% of your posts are one liners. You are the Dennis Miller of the board.

It's funny to me that even when you are replying to someone else you mention me. Are you a stalker?


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Truth34 said:


> OK,
> 
> Then he's bad at every shot except for the crazy runners and such. Seriously, is there a shot he can consistently hit?


This is all just personal observation, if I cared enough about Walker or his game I'd do shot charts to measure, but I don't. I'm just not willing to do that much work where he's concerned. But, this is what I picked up watching the Celtics after his return. On an overall basis, Walker is better shooting with feet set than off the dribble. His off the dribble shooting past 15' is pretty horrid. If you watch his catch & shoot threes they aren't bad (NOTE, for the ignorant jackalopes {you know who you are} reading this, _not bad_ and _good_ are *NOT* synonyms). Beyond that he seems to shoot better when facing the backboard. I'm not sure whether it's a depth perception problem or what, but he can't hit anything from the baseline. Even bunnies from the baseline hit nothing but rim. The closer he is to the middle third of the floor the better he shoots. 

He's a terrible low post shooter because he's seriously the shortest 6'8" guy in NBA history, he doesn't have much standing reach, and not a whole lot of lift. Consequently when he takes the ball on the blocks he tends to toss that up & over flip shot of his, that isn't designed to go in the basket so much as it's designed to get over the defender. When his defender goes up to block it 'Toine ducks under and crashes the board for a putback. This led to some of those crazy nights where he amassed gaudy offensive rebounding numbers and crazy shot totals because he'd get three boards & four shots on the same basket. 

Consistently he'd seem to be a good fit for a Princeton style offense where he could slide off the blocks to take the ball on the wing and either feed the post or swing the ball to an open cutter. I guess in Miami that flip shot of his will work better because they'll lead to a lot of Shaq putbacks. And having Wade & Shaq on the floor means that he'll get more set shots spotting up on the wing. So overall his eFG% should improve. But the Heat are also going to be the worst free throw shooting team on the planet.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Causeway said:


> guys that can shoot FT's are generally good shooters.


People do not consider Ray Allen a great jump shooter because of his free throw shooting. Sorry. Try again.



Causeway said:


> "he can't negotiate the waters of statistical analysis"?? Yeah this is heavy stuff! It's impressive how smart you are to get it. The thread is on how if you take away his shots at the end of a shot clock his FG% goes up. That's deep!


Actually, there was a lot more to it than that, but apparently it went over your head.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

ehmunro said:


> People do not consider Ray Allen a great jump shooter because of his free throw shooting. Sorry. Try again.


I did not say the only reson Ray Allen is considered a great shooter is because of his Ft shooting. It is a factor though. Other posters in here agree.

Are people saying that the _only_ reason Walker has a poor FG% is because he sometimes takes shots at the end of the clock? No. It's a factor.



ehmunro said:


> Actually, there was a lot more to it than that, but apparently it went over your head.


Other people are bored by you. I now am as well. If you have more Dennis Miller type over my head comments why don't save us all and PM me.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Causeway said:


> I did not say the only reson Ray Allen is considered a great shooter is because of his Ft shooting. It is a factor though. Other posters in here agree.
> 
> Are people saying that the _only_ reason Walker has a poor FG% is because he sometimes takes shots at the end of the clock? No. It's a factor.


Actually one of the worst factors. If you want FT's to be included in a players' shooting percenatges, look up his aFG%, TS%, or PSA.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

Premier said:


> Actually one of the worst factors. If you want FT's to be included in a players' shooting percenatges, look up his aFG%, TS%, or PSA.


As mentioned already - if a guy can't hit a FT odds are he probably can't shoot 25 footers. Yes there are some exceptions. But it is a strong indication.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Once again, not really. It may work in most cases, but you have to understand that a three-pointer is very different from a free throw.

Just stick to FG%.


----------

