Quote:
Originally Posted by That Guy
well, the problem is FG% varies widely between 3 point shooters and guys hiding under the basket. i mean, shaq is a .581 shooter, but he couldn't make a 3 to save his life, and often gets laughed at for his career .524% on free throws.
gil has a lower fg%, but i don't see how anyone could possibly call him a worse shooter when he can go 3/10 from his own backcourt.
that argument is bogus and dead in my eyes. i'll need to see something that's a bit more logical to prove he can't shoot.
|
I recognize this and, to your point, there's no way that KG is a better shooter than either Pierce or Allen (which demonstrates the ridiculousness of attempting to use FG% to evaluate a player), but I was merely trying to show him that, based on his own argument, one could make the case that the Celts made a bad move by grabbing 2 guys with a FG% below .500. I'm not saying that is a logical point, obviously if you can add Allen and Garnett to Pierce, you pull the trigger, but based on his logic, that wouldn't have happened. I was trying illustrate, with my post, that the use of FG% is ridiculous.
It's like trying to use RBI to evaluate a baseball player...it makes absolutely no sense. OPS or OPS+ are far better, people need to start embracing metrics.