KG’s a career 27% 3-point shooter, so if he shifted his focus to the 3-point line, he would’ve been Josh Smith.

Being a low efficiency team has to mean at least you’re not good. Those Wolves were really, really good. If not being efficient means being that good, what’s the point in being efficient?

I understand the (very shallow) point Chau’s trying to make, that the “quality” of shots changed a lot from 00 to 17. But if your stat exposes a very good team as an example of inneficiency, you should revise either your stats or your point.

As I said, Barnwell would’ve made a real study out of this idea — as he often does. And it’s not difficult. Go season-by-season and see wich teams deviate more from the norm. And, of course, keep in mind that a made long two-pointer is worth 2 more points than a missed 3-p0inter.