रेडी की तिर-पॉइंट जादुक

परिधि मस्साह का मिथक

मैंने फिर से देखा: 72% लेकर्स पॉज़ेशन्स पेंट के बजाय 3-पॉइंटर से समाप्त होते हैं, परन्तु पेंट डिफेंस प्ले-ऑफ मेट्रिक्स में सबसे कमजोर है। प्रशंसक ‘क्लच شूटिंग’ कहते हैं। मैं इसे सांख्यिकीय सुइसाइड कहता हूँ। jab xG 0.45 से ऊपर चढ़ता है, win rates June में गील कागज़ की tarहगई—यह संयोग नहीं।

내부 선이消失

वे मध्य-रेंज को ‘वิ�ल’ मानते हैं,और rim protection को ‘अफ़्ट्रथ’। ریडی کا effective field goal percentage? High—परन्तु his isolation offense paint ko khali kar deta hai. opponents Game 7s में surgical precision se is gap exploit karte hain. Your ‘edge first’ mantra strategy nahi—he ek spreadsheet hallucination hai.

Bayesian Truth vs Fan Fiction

मुझne models trained on 12 seasons of NBA data—not memes from Twitter threads. Bayes hum bolta hai: jab shot volume interior creation ke bina rise hota hai, winning probability exponentially decline hoti hai. James ne dikha dekha; Reedy ne script likha hai. Ek architect hai; doosra, ek algorithmic ghost.

Cultural Blindness ka Kharcha

वे kehte hain ‘Reedy’s clutch.’ Main kehta hoon ‘Reedy’s curse.’ Jab aapka system interior efficiency (e.g., 68% FG at rim) ignore karta hai aur perimeter output (38% from deep) celebrate karta hai, toh aapke paas team nahi—he ek statistical mirror jisme aapka denial.

Data Doesn’t Lie—People Do

Numbers don’t care if you believe Reedy is magic or James is flawed—they just calculate outcomes. In playoffs, jab transition offense collapse ho jaata hai aur isolation dominate? Win rates plummet by 32%. That’s not bad coaching—it’s bad modeling.

Agle next time someone says ‘He shot us to victory,’ ask them: What was the xG distribution before that shot? And why did they ignore what happened in the paint?