Re: effeciency per possession versus minutes played, FG%,...
- 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
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.
--- 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
> > increased shots-attempted Almost invariably leads to lower
> > percentage.
> > Turnovers alone weren't the reason Artis didn't take more shots.
> > reality, as the 3rd or 4th scoring option, a player doesn't get
> > 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
> I think Bob is correct in saying that turnovers are something to
> consider. But lets factor in the incidentals, I assume Gilmore
> 57% because he only shot 5 feet from the hoop and in. thus, he
> only when he had position to do so. more shots to gilmore, as
> correctly note, probably means expanding artis's limited range.
> There may be cases where expanded shots does not have to equal
> 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
> 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
> 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
> only have a finite number of shots to take that are reasonable for
> them to take and more shots means expanding their roles to
> where they almost certainly be unsuccessful.