The limits of human talent?

“[Stephen] Curry is averaging 1.92 points per [three-point] attempt this season. Dunk attempts are averaging 1.82 points this season, according to tracking.”

Here is the article, via Ari Lamm.


Hah, he went 0-4 last night and his pt/attempt dropped to ~1.5. Small sample?

Basketball is less a game of skill and more a game of height.

You are not wrong.

The quote is a little bit misleading. He has 1.92 per attempt only for shots from 28 feet and beyond. But yeah, small sample plays a role here (but he's also just ridiculously good and having to guard him closely so far from the basket would switch the defense completely, so his shots from there are probably less contested).

IDK. The article says Curry is 16/25 from 3 point distance... which equals the quoted 1.92 per attempt.

And I'll also note that this is nothing new.... The mid range game has been dead for a decade; the only noteworthy aspect is that it's now extending to layups.

I found this about Silicon Valley talent disturbing: Has Cowen interviewed Harari and I missed it?

"Only after the power grid has shut down...
...and every transformer as blown out...
...and every connection cut or powered down...
...and the server farms lay dormant and dusty...
Will you realize that you can't eat electricity."

- Paraphrasing Alanis Obomsawin

The sense of self-importance these people never ceases to amaze. Rifles still shoot, bombs still go boom, solar flares will still happen, EMPs are a thing and the power grid is still fragile. At the end of the day their houses are still made of straw, and creative and dedicated people - with proper motivation - can still bring it all down.

The destructive potential of people has always amazed, and will continue to.

I am fascinated by Yuval and his ideas. He's all over YouTube. After reading his books and listening to him many times I am convinced we are all fooled by normalcy bias.

Economists should be familiar with the feeling, having been caught flat-footed in 2008 and again in 2016.

Bad things are going to happen.

Very bad things.

How do we know that's not pessimism bias?

$10 says the above three comments are all just rayward waxing his own carrot, so to speak.

Ingenious metaphor.

Related news: our Chinese friends are telling us that ALL US news anchors are now officially OVERPAID:

ALL of them. (Their status has been overblown for a while, perhaps in anticipation of reaching this day some three decades after the career of Max Headroom.)

Now all we have to do is await the first AI news anchor sex scandal . . .

lmao Max Headroom. I nearly spat out my Zima.

Take Mr. Obama, often considered a great president because of his assassination of Osama bin Laden. Yet, on his watch, in 2018, the number of concealed handgun permits soared to now over 17.25 million – a 273% increase since 2007. To kill the devil, you have to deal with the devil and that causes trauma. Certainly, there is a gun control angle to play, but Mr. Obama could not get anything substantial passed even after Adam Lanza, who was not a veteran but a mentally disturbed person.

The NYT does not understand there is a mental health epidemic in this country. Because, for the most part, by and large, they are a part of the problem. Veterans and Gang Members have a lot of mental health issues in common and no one is writing about it. No one at the NYT is asking for the motive of Richard Jefferson Sr.'s killer. Or Kellen Winslow.

There is a link between mass shootings and veteran suicide. There is a link between mass shootings and social media. There is a link between mass shootings and Matthew Shepard. I repeat, it is probably that the NYT headlines, the macular degeneration that appears from time to time, has radicalized a mass shooter. I know it has caused PTSD for me. Luckily, I don't own a gun.

In July 2016, they NYT published an article by a former veteran that says, "Or maybe post-traumatic stress disorder drove them to homicide? That’s very unlikely, since neither had seen combat, neither was reported to have PTSD, and even if they had been, research has shown that veterans who have PTSD are less likely to commit acts of premeditated violence than veterans who don’t. "

Can you imagine the Op-Eds they haven't published?

That was before he faced the Milwaukee Bucks, who destroyed Golden State on dunks. (84 to 34 last night on points in the paint.)

You need to re-visit your Ben Thompson interview, as he is the only NBA pundit who correctly saw that the Bucks would be great this year.

Boy, that Gass guy doesn't mess around. There's not a book on that list I could get past four chapters of. Reading MR makes me feel dumb sometimes.

It makes me feel especially dumb when I comment on the wrong post. Good night.

Extremely misleading way to quote the post. You're better than that Tyrone.

The three-pointer probably has too large of a bonus. At a 1.5 multiplier, you only need to hit 33% of your threes to be equivalent to a 50% field goal percentage on regular shots. The Lakers and Celtics teams of the mid 80s would take <5 three point attempts per game. The Warriors last year average nearly 30 attempts per game. I think things have trended that way because the game is slower and teams play tougher defense in the half court. When it's tougher inside, the three becomes relatively more attractive plus it helps spread the floor. I just wonder if it will get even more extreme, like teams taking 40+ attempts. The greater variance is also a consideration.

Those observations are on the right track -- but do not go far enough and are late.

I say late because last season the Rockets' averaged more than 40 3-point attempts per game -- as they'd done the year before. Last year more than half of their field goal attempts were 3-pointers.

And the observations don't go far enough because 3-pointers are even more valuable than you give them credit for. A 33% average on threes is superficially equivalent to a 50% average on twos.

But the 33% 3-pt shooting team is doing better because it's getting the same number of points on those shot attempts -- and it's also giving itself MORE shot attempts. How do we know this? Because of all of those missed shots, which give the 3-point shooting team more chances to grab an offensive rebound and get a second shot.

In contrast, the 2-pt shooting team has to give the basketball to its opponent more often, because of all of those field goals it's making.

Admittedly, the analysis above omits fouls and the benefits of getting free throws and putting your opponent into foul trouble. Short-range 2-point attempts are especially likely to result in FTs for the shooter and fouls for the defense. Which is why the standard mantra in basketball these days is look for open 3-point shots, or layins and dunks, but avoid shooting long 2-point attempts because they combine the worst attributes of long vs short shots.

There might be an interesting sociological or cultural history to write about basketball strategy. The NBA has had the 3-point shot since 1979, and some of us have been noting the advantage of shooting more 3-pointers for decades. But it took the NBA decades to gradually take advantage of the 3-point shot (and the ABA teams weren't taking full advantage of it either).

Why has it taken so long for NBA coaches to realize the advantages of an offense built around 3-point shots? I don't know, but it probably relates to football coaches still punting too often and going for one point instead of two after a touchdown too often.

I should add that even though shooting more 3-pointers is a winning strategy that more teams should pursue, I've never been in favor of having 3-point field goals in the first place. We haven't seen the end of basketball evolution; under current rules teams should be shooting even more 3-pointers than they currently are. But as they do so, the game is turning into a 3-point shooting contest rather than a full basketball game.

The Hebrew word translated in the KJV as "colors" (or its singular) is ayin (Strong's Concordance #H5869), meaning "an eye" either figuratively or literally. According to the 1913 Jewish Encyclopedia and several Bible commentaries, ancient Hebrew had no specific term to describe the property of light we call colors.

Golden State starts five all-stars, at least two of whom are Hall of Famers. This, likely the NBA's historically greatest lineup, prevents defenses from focusing exclusively on Curry. Trade him to the Suns and his 3p% would drop considerably.

Who's the fifth all-star starting for them?

Curry is the new Michael Jordan. Yeah ok.

Let me know when Curry wins DPOY.

Might as well add a 4-pt arc somewhere out there

Comments for this post are closed