Re: This is why you are missing open jumpshots.
DigiMich, I hope that I'm going to say this in a respectful enough manner that you can think on it and perhaps take it to heart, without first feeling the need to comment on whether or not this was relevant to the thread topic.
I have read through all 12 pages so far, and seldom perceived you as actually trying to answer your own question.
Some of the more knowledgeable and dedicated posters on OS have taken the time to try to help you discover the truth behind your thoughtful initial query, but you have consistently seemed to be more interested in being the arbiter of good taste/sense than actually trying to have a productive conversation.
It feels quite condescending to be told your opinion of their comments, or how they're misunderstanding you due to a difference of communication styles, before or instead of actually trying to bridge those gaps and build toward a greater understanding together.
If you truly believe that someone else's comment isn't helpful, you will waste less of your (and everybody else's) time if you simply ignore it or briefly acknowledge it and move on.
If you can see a small opportunity to make progress toward your true goal in what somebody had to say, but disagree with 95% of it, take the good instead of focusing on what you didn't like.
At some point, you have to stop judging others (positively or negatively) and ask yourself why you're not much closer to your answer than you were 2 days ago.
Please don't take this as a challenge to quote yourself in order to prove that you have somehow actually been doing these things throughout the thread. This is not meant as a personal attack of any kind, just a plea to acknowledge that some progress may be/has been made on your part, rather than just handing out the occasional gold star like an elementary school teacher.
I hope you understand that there is a huge difference between saying "I appreciate your input" - which you have done plenty of, and "your input gave me a different perspective or deeper understanding of the issue", which I saw you do very rarely.
I'll do my best to summarize what I've learned in this thread, hopefully somewhere in there you'll find most of what you're looking for.
Based on evidence from Da Czar's video: The difference between perfect release shots for any given player/range/shot type in red and grey zones is 1-2 makes out of 10 attempts, so the effect appears to be more/other than simply reducing the penalty for bad timing.
Again, per the evidence in Czar's video: if 2 shooters with identical ratings each take 10 shots from every area on the floor, the shooter with more hot zones will make more total shots.
However, if there is no glitch/mechanic affecting SOD/SIT/Consistency/Sig Skills which is triggered specifically by the zones, a player with significant advantages in those areas is very likely to shoot better in actual game situations, given a large sample size, than a player with identical shot ratings and more hot zones.
While we have no hard evidence (yet?) that other factors are affected by the zones, we are aware of the existence of the Eurostep 3 glitch, which certainly leaves it open to speculation that something other than the basic shot mechanics (including zones) is affecting shot success.
In order to verify whether or not the zones are affecting ratings other than basic shooting, we would have to trigger the (SOD, etc.) rating on multiple shots in each zone type and record whether or not the difference between the amount of made (per release quality) shots differed by significantly more than the 1-2 that it did without the variable.
If we find that by either a glitch or intended design, the zones also affect those shot modifiers, then yes - players with more zones have an unfair advantage, even in actual games, but if not - we should all take Durant (barring resource limitations and personal preference of course) over Novak.
That's a lot of ifs...get to testing!
DigiMich, I hope that I'm going to say this in a respectful enough manner that you can think on it and perhaps take it to heart, without first feeling the need to comment on whether or not this was relevant to the thread topic.
I have read through all 12 pages so far, and seldom perceived you as actually trying to answer your own question.
Some of the more knowledgeable and dedicated posters on OS have taken the time to try to help you discover the truth behind your thoughtful initial query, but you have consistently seemed to be more interested in being the arbiter of good taste/sense than actually trying to have a productive conversation.
It feels quite condescending to be told your opinion of their comments, or how they're misunderstanding you due to a difference of communication styles, before or instead of actually trying to bridge those gaps and build toward a greater understanding together.
If you truly believe that someone else's comment isn't helpful, you will waste less of your (and everybody else's) time if you simply ignore it or briefly acknowledge it and move on.
If you can see a small opportunity to make progress toward your true goal in what somebody had to say, but disagree with 95% of it, take the good instead of focusing on what you didn't like.
At some point, you have to stop judging others (positively or negatively) and ask yourself why you're not much closer to your answer than you were 2 days ago.
Please don't take this as a challenge to quote yourself in order to prove that you have somehow actually been doing these things throughout the thread. This is not meant as a personal attack of any kind, just a plea to acknowledge that some progress may be/has been made on your part, rather than just handing out the occasional gold star like an elementary school teacher.
I hope you understand that there is a huge difference between saying "I appreciate your input" - which you have done plenty of, and "your input gave me a different perspective or deeper understanding of the issue", which I saw you do very rarely.
I'll do my best to summarize what I've learned in this thread, hopefully somewhere in there you'll find most of what you're looking for.
Based on evidence from Da Czar's video: The difference between perfect release shots for any given player/range/shot type in red and grey zones is 1-2 makes out of 10 attempts, so the effect appears to be more/other than simply reducing the penalty for bad timing.
Again, per the evidence in Czar's video: if 2 shooters with identical ratings each take 10 shots from every area on the floor, the shooter with more hot zones will make more total shots.
However, if there is no glitch/mechanic affecting SOD/SIT/Consistency/Sig Skills which is triggered specifically by the zones, a player with significant advantages in those areas is very likely to shoot better in actual game situations, given a large sample size, than a player with identical shot ratings and more hot zones.
While we have no hard evidence (yet?) that other factors are affected by the zones, we are aware of the existence of the Eurostep 3 glitch, which certainly leaves it open to speculation that something other than the basic shot mechanics (including zones) is affecting shot success.
In order to verify whether or not the zones are affecting ratings other than basic shooting, we would have to trigger the (SOD, etc.) rating on multiple shots in each zone type and record whether or not the difference between the amount of made (per release quality) shots differed by significantly more than the 1-2 that it did without the variable.
If we find that by either a glitch or intended design, the zones also affect those shot modifiers, then yes - players with more zones have an unfair advantage, even in actual games, but if not - we should all take Durant (barring resource limitations and personal preference of course) over Novak.
That's a lot of ifs...get to testing!
Comment