Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [APBR_analysis] Re: effeciency per possession versus minutes played, FG%,...

Expand Messages
  • bchaikin@aol.com
    ...another example would be Artis Gilmore late in his career, when he was shooting something like 65% from the field. Why didn t he just shoot the ball 40
    Message 1 of 4 , Oct 15, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      "...another example would be Artis Gilmore late in his career, when he was
      shooting something like 65% from the field.  Why didn't he just shoot the
      ball 40 times per game?  For the obvious reason that his FG% (and
      efficiency) would've gone way down...."...

      this conclusion is unfounded - pure assumption and nothing else. there is no "obvious reason" that his FG% would go down, any more than there is an "obvious reason" his FG% would go up...

      shaq has taken twice as many shots in a season as gilmore did in the years gilmore shot over 60% from the floor (early 80s) and he still shoots 57%-58%-59%. why is his FG% so high with twice as many FGA? why doesn't his FG% drop with a high amount of FGA compared to gilmore? in reality their low post games are actually quite similar - something like 5 feet and in.....

      one difference is that o'neal is a more mobile player and thus has a higher possession factor (touches/min). a high touches/min doesn't result simply from players throwing you the ball more often, you also have to get open - get in position to receive the ball more often so that they can throw you the ball, i.e. get yourself open. why is his possession factor so much higher, 50%-90% higher than gilmore's in the years gilmore shot 60+% from the field?  again, because he is more mobile, can get open in a position to score more often, but most importantly - turns the ball over far less per individual ball possession than gilmore...

      in the years gilmore was shooting 60+% from the floor he was also turning the ball over 1 out of every 8 to 1 out of every 9 individual ball possessions. shaq only turns the ball over 1 out of every 16 to 1 out of every 20 individual ball possessions. that's a huge difference - gilmore turning the ball over almost twice as often as shaq does. even if a player shoots 60+% from the floor, would you always want to get him the ball if a guard who only turns the ball over 1 out of every 20 ball possessions but shoots 50% is available?or even just 45%?.....

      gilmore, and a player like steve johnson who shot the ball over 60% very early in his career and turned the ball over 1 out of every 8 touches, simply do not get more opportunities to score because they don't get open often enough and they turn the ball over too often. shaq is the prime example of a player who does get alot of shot opportunities because he does shoot a high FG% but also because he rarely turns the ball over, about as often as your typical point guard (actually slightly worse than your typical PG)...

      james donaldson shot almost 64% from the field in 84-85 with the clippers but only took 6-7 FGA/g. why? because he turned the ball over a whopping 1 out of every 6 ball possessions. why would you give the ball to a player that turns the ball over so often - even if he shot 70%? in 86-87 kevin mchale shot over 60% from the floor but on 17 FGA/g, almost 3 times as many attempts as donaldson. why so many FGA? because he only turned the ball over 1 out of every 14 ball possessions. jabbar in 79-80 shot over 60%, turned the ball over only 1 out of every 12 to 13 ball possessions....

      the bottom line is that if you've got a player that shoots a high FG% and only turns the ball over about as often as a typical guard (6%-8% of the time or 1 out of every 12-16 ball possessions) then you've got a real go-to guy. but if he shoots 60+% but turns the ball over too often, you've got better choices on offense....

      and if some team had a player than shot 60+% from the floor but only turned the ball over 1 out of every, say, 25 ball possessions (4% TO), john-stockton-type turnover percentage, then you would see that team trying to get him the ball as often as possible so he could get 40 FGA/g....

      they could have tried to get the ball to gilmore more often, and he'd still shoot 60+% from the field, but he'd have a helluva alot of TOs. and don't forget he had seasons in the ABA in kentucky where he shot 58%-59% with upwards of 16-17 FGA/g....

      bob chaikin
      bchaikin@...






    • Mike G
      ... he was ... shoot the ... there is no ... an ... I have to concur with Michael T, and with others who have noted that increased shots-attempted Almost
      Message 2 of 4 , Oct 15, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In APBR_analysis@y..., bchaikin@a... wrote:
        > "...another example would be Artis Gilmore late in his career, when
        he was
        > shooting something like 65% from the field. Why didn't he just
        shoot the
        > ball 40 times per game? For the obvious reason that his FG% (and
        > efficiency) would've gone way down...."...
        >
        > this conclusion is unfounded - pure assumption and nothing else.
        there is no
        > "obvious reason" that his FG% would go down, any more than there is
        an
        > "obvious reason" his FG% would go up...


        I have to concur with Michael T, and with others who have noted that
        increased shots-attempted Almost invariably leads to lower shooting
        percentage.

        Turnovers alone weren't the reason Artis didn't take more shots. In
        reality, as the 3rd or 4th scoring option, a player doesn't get many
        double-teams and indeed might even be left alone several times a
        game. This leads to high-percentage shots.

        Conversely, being the 1st scoring option (as Artis was in Chicago,
        often) does lead to turnovers, from double-teaming.

        Further, when a center becomes the primary scorer -- see Ewing,
        Olajuwon, Robinson -- their choice of go-to shot may lead them away
        from the basket. So even shooting 60%, if they aren't there to
        rebound, they have to have a serious power forward in the game.

        I don't know what great power forward was ever teamed with Gilmore in
        the NBA. Mickey Johnson? Landsberger? Greenwood?

        In any case, whether you are a dunk specialist or a 3-point
        specialist, you don't have the scoring game of an all-around player.
        Even a guy like Majerle, with unlimited range and a power dunk, had
        no midrange game and could only get you 10-15 points.
      • harlanzo
        ... that ... In ... many ... If Gilmore could have scored 18 ppg at 57% in 1987-88 he would have. I think Bob is correct in saying that turnovers are something
        Message 3 of 4 , Oct 15, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Mike G" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
          >
          > I have to concur with Michael T, and with others who have noted
          that
          > increased shots-attempted Almost invariably leads to lower shooting
          > percentage.
          >
          > Turnovers alone weren't the reason Artis didn't take more shots.
          In
          > reality, as the 3rd or 4th scoring option, a player doesn't get
          many
          > double-teams and indeed might even be left alone several times a
          > game. This leads to high-percentage shots.
          >
          If Gilmore could have scored 18 ppg at 57% in 1987-88 he would have.
          I think Bob is correct in saying that turnovers are something to
          consider. But lets factor in the incidentals, I assume Gilmore shot
          57% because he only shot 5 feet from the hoop and in. thus, he shot
          only when he had position to do so. more shots to gilmore, as mikeg
          correctly note, probably means expanding artis's limited range.
          There may be cases where expanded shots does not have to equal lower
          fg% but it almost always is. the best example of this has to be
          wilt. when he decided to stop shooting as much he pretty much
          reduced his shooting to 5 footers and in and did not use the fadeaway
          as much. look at the how his stats changed:

          year fgm/fga fg% ppg
          59-60 1065/2311 46.1 37.6
          60-61 1251/2457 50.9 38.4
          61-62 1597/3159 50.6 50.4
          62-63 1463/2770 52.8 44.8
          63-64 1204/2298 52.4 36.9
          64-65 1063/2083 51.0 34.7
          65-66 1074/1990 54.0 33.5
          66-67 785/1150 68.3 24.1
          67-68 819/1377 59.5 24.3
          68-69 641/1099 58.3 20.5
          69-70 129/227 56.8 27.3
          70-71 668/1226 54.5 20.7
          71-72 496/764 64.9 14.8
          72-73 426/586 72.7 13.2

          I would hazard a guess that if Shaq limited his shots to sure things
          he could shoot 70% too. I am not saying that this would be better
          for his team but we should recognize guys like an old Gilmore or Kerr
          only have a finite number of shots to take that are reasonable for
          them to take and more shots means expanding their roles to situations
          where they almost certainly be unsuccessful.
        • Dean Oliver
          I have developed functional forms for how players respond to different levels of responsibility. I consider how a player s offensive rating responds to
          Message 4 of 4 , Oct 15, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            I have developed functional forms for how players respond to
            different levels of responsibility. I consider how a player's
            offensive rating responds to "possessions", which considers both
            turnovers and shots. More turnovers and more shots means lower
            efficiency. How that declines really depends on the player.

            The problem with looking at things over time is that player ability
            changes with experience and age (and teammates, as MikeT said).
            There is relevance in it, but it's tough. I think a good example is
            actually Wilt Chamberlain, as harlanzo points out. When he decided
            to stop taking >30% of his team's shots, his FG% went from around 50%
            to 60-70%. His scoring average went down, but his efficiency (if
            only measured by fg%) went through the roof. The benefit of looking
            at Wilt is that we know such a change was pretty much a _decision_,
            not so much a change in skills or teammates (even though both were
            also happening).

            Yes, Shaq could shoot 70%. His Offensive rating these days is about
            116, using about 32% of team possessions. 116 is 1.16 points per
            possession in a league where the average is 104. It is very hard to
            maintain such a number with 30% of possessions used. MJ did it
            regularly. MJ did it at a higher rating and more possessions used.
            No one I've seen has come close to what MJ did on that front. Shaq's
            rating -- mainly due to his poor FT shooting -- is just stuck around
            115 due to his poor foul shooting. If he could be a secondary
            option, his rating would go up. I don't remember his efficiency
            ceiling off the top of my head, but it's not as high as MJs because
            of that poor FT%.

            I spell a lot more of this out and give methods, etc. in the book.

            Gotta go...



            --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "harlanzo" <harlanzo@y...> wrote:
            > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Mike G" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
            > >
            > > I have to concur with Michael T, and with others who have noted
            > that
            > > increased shots-attempted Almost invariably leads to lower
            shooting
            > > percentage.
            > >
            > > Turnovers alone weren't the reason Artis didn't take more shots.
            > In
            > > reality, as the 3rd or 4th scoring option, a player doesn't get
            > many
            > > double-teams and indeed might even be left alone several times a
            > > game. This leads to high-percentage shots.
            > >
            > If Gilmore could have scored 18 ppg at 57% in 1987-88 he would
            have.
            > I think Bob is correct in saying that turnovers are something to
            > consider. But lets factor in the incidentals, I assume Gilmore
            shot
            > 57% because he only shot 5 feet from the hoop and in. thus, he
            shot
            > only when he had position to do so. more shots to gilmore, as
            mikeg
            > correctly note, probably means expanding artis's limited range.
            > There may be cases where expanded shots does not have to equal
            lower
            > fg% but it almost always is. the best example of this has to be
            > wilt. when he decided to stop shooting as much he pretty much
            > reduced his shooting to 5 footers and in and did not use the
            fadeaway
            > as much. look at the how his stats changed:
            >
            > year fgm/fga fg% ppg
            > 59-60 1065/2311 46.1 37.6
            > 60-61 1251/2457 50.9 38.4
            > 61-62 1597/3159 50.6 50.4
            > 62-63 1463/2770 52.8 44.8
            > 63-64 1204/2298 52.4 36.9
            > 64-65 1063/2083 51.0 34.7
            > 65-66 1074/1990 54.0 33.5
            > 66-67 785/1150 68.3 24.1
            > 67-68 819/1377 59.5 24.3
            > 68-69 641/1099 58.3 20.5
            > 69-70 129/227 56.8 27.3
            > 70-71 668/1226 54.5 20.7
            > 71-72 496/764 64.9 14.8
            > 72-73 426/586 72.7 13.2
            >
            > I would hazard a guess that if Shaq limited his shots to sure
            things
            > he could shoot 70% too. I am not saying that this would be better
            > for his team but we should recognize guys like an old Gilmore or
            Kerr
            > only have a finite number of shots to take that are reasonable for
            > them to take and more shots means expanding their roles to
            situations
            > where they almost certainly be unsuccessful.
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.