Hoist!

A chatter wonders if Agent Zero shouldn't reign it in: "it seems like if the Wizards had someone like Nellie to ream out Arenas every time he jacked up a 3-pointer from 30 feet out with 20 seconds left on the shot clock, the Wizards would be a pretty good team right now." John Hollinger responds with the accurate observation that the Wizards problems are much more on the offensive than the defensive end. I would also note that though Gilbertology appears to involve a lot of questionable shot-selection, he's actually a very accurate long-range shooter -- career .365 from beyond the arc. This season, he's been especially accurate at .391 -- that's 1.17 points per shot, well above the Wizards' general offensive efficiency or, indeed, the efficiency of the league's best offense.

Arguably, he should be shooting hoisting more random three pointers. I'd be an advocate of just about anything that resulted in fewer shots for Jarvis Hayes.

Comments

let's put aside that i'm a grumpy old-timer who is not particularly a fan of the three, and let's further stipulate that my wizard-watching is pretty minimal.

still.

without wanting to sound all larry brown (or george karl), winning teams by and large play the "right" way a vast majority of the time (sometimes they need to be reminded, of course). gilbert's a good 3-point shooter and so there's nothing wrong with him hoisting 3s per se, but it's almost never the "right" play, no matter what your style is, to be shooting extra-long 3s with 20 seconds on the clock.

does gilbert actually do this? couldn't tell by me....

Posted by howard | November 27, 2006 7:08 PM

The problem I have with Gilbert's play this year is that he seems to go to the line much less frequently than he did last year (down 13% on a per game basis from last year). There were many times last year in which Gilbert's jumpers weren't falling and he would take three-four drives in the lane and either get fouled or a layup so he would remain in some sort of offensive flow.

That said, one can make the argument that once he regains his shooting touch, he may become a more efficient player than last year. His rebounds and assists are up this year on a per game basis while his turnovers seem to be down (although the latter might be an effect of him not making the drives to the basket that he did last year).

The problem with the Wiz -- other than the defense, of course -- is Arenas and Jamison have had horrible starts shooting the ball (Jamison has picked up recently, just in time for Arenas' recent slump). Stevenson looks like a better player than Jeffries and Thomas provides something that the Wiz didn't have last year -- a big man with a pulse.

Posted by Chris R | November 27, 2006 7:29 PM

Having watched Gilbert briefly in his days with Golden State it sounds like his shot selection still is lacking. While he may be a decent three-point shooter, not all threes are created equally. So if he just starts jacking them up, watch that percentage and points per shot average fall as the shots fail to.

Washington is 0-7 on the road? Wow, even the lowly Trailblazers have managed a couple of road wins already...

Posted by Tiparillo | November 27, 2006 7:41 PM

Part of the conventional wisdom that criticizes early "hoists" is that it prevents the rest of the team from "getting in the offensive flow." Might it be possible to look for this externality (?) by trying to correlate non-Gilbert shooting pct or offensive efficiency and Gilbert 3Pt attempts?

Posted by T_Porter | November 27, 2006 8:12 PM

When you look at FG percentages, it seems that shooting more threes would lead to more points per shot. But aside from all the typical objections to that idea (long rebounds from threes, the decreased likelihood of getting fouled from three-point range, etc.), Arenas is the best scorer on the Wizards when driving to the basket--i.e. he has the ability to create free throw oportunities, double teams and thus open threes, and in general high percentage shots. So having Arenas take it to the rack, even if it results in *fewer points per shot for himself*, will probably produce a more efficient offense overall than having him jack up threes with 15 seconds on the shot clock left. This is one reason why FG% is sometimes misleading in the case of ballhandlers (see Iverson, A., and Kidd, J.)--the best player often has to take the shot of last resort in a good offense.

Posted by Jeremiah J. | November 28, 2006 3:27 AM

I suppose it's useless to remind you that it's "rein it in," not "reign it in." I've already given up on defending "toe the line" against "tow the line."

Posted by SqueakyRat | November 28, 2006 5:07 AM

There are two problems with your analysis here. First, it assumes that all 3's are created equal--that every 3 Gilbert shoots he has the same .391 percentage on. That is certainly a false assumption. His percentage is presumably made up of quick hoists off the dribble, shots from well beyond the arc, and other shots where he's wide open and set.

A second objection is that a shot early in the shot clock forgoes the chance of getting a really high percentage shot like a lay-up, dunk, or open short jumper. If you run the offense for 15 second and haven't gotten anything, then you start thinking about letting Gilbert take the first available shot.

Posted by Doug T | November 28, 2006 7:51 AM

A second objection is that a shot early in the shot clock forgoes the chance of getting a really high percentage shot like a lay-up, dunk, or open short jumper. If you run the offense for 15 second and haven't gotten anything, then you start thinking about letting Gilbert take the first available shot.

I think Gilbert's occassional forays into "crazy" shots confuse and unnerve the defense. It also forces perimeter defenders to guard him close way far from the rim and opens up possibilities for the drive.

Seriously, though, I just want Jarvis Hayes to never shoot the ball. Ever.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | November 28, 2006 8:24 AM

A useful stat, it seems would be points for possesion following the shot. If you get a rebound and score 2 points, that counts +2, if the other team gets a fast break and scores 2, that counts negative two, and so on. I would imagine it could filter out some of the effects of 'crazy' shots and see exactly how the long rebound theory really applies -- is this info already available?

Posted by theCoach | November 28, 2006 8:37 AM

"I think Gilbert's occassional forays into "crazy" shots confuse and unnerve the defense. It also forces perimeter defenders to guard him close way far from the rim and opens up possibilities for the drive."

Hmmm, if he makes enough of them to force the defense to guard him out there, than it would indicate that it really isn't a crazy shot. If it were, then the defense would be happy to let him shoot it, and even encourage it when he had the ball out there by not bothering to guard him.

Posted by Doug T | November 28, 2006 9:22 AM