Re: Shooting percentages

Expand Messages
• ... number ... higher ... shots ... players? ... I m trying to get my brain around this, but this method seems to give undue weight to the amount of attempts
Message 1 of 9 , Oct 17, 2003
--- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, igor eduardo küpfer
<igorkupfer@r...> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "rose7654" <rose7654@y...>
> To: <APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 3:58 PM
> Subject: [APBR_analysis] Shooting percentages
>
>
> > Hi, just stumbled into this group. Maybe somebody can help:
> >
> > Is there a formula/ratio for adjusting fg% to account for the
number
> > of attempts a player takes? For example, a player that shoots 48%
> > and averages 16 shots a game, in my opinion, should be valued
higher
> > as a shooter than a player that shoots 52% but only averages 4
shots
> > a game.
> >
> > Anybody have thoughts on how to account for this in ranking
players?
> > Thanks.
> >
>
> There's a few ways -- none, I think, recognized as the ultimate.
Here's one:
>
> FGpts - misses (ie FGM * 3 + 3FGM - FGA)
>
> For example, here are the numbers for three players:
>
> fgm fga 3m pts
> a 5 20 2 12 -3
> b 50 200 20 120 -30
> c 100 200 20 220 0
> d 150 200 30 330 100
>
> ed

I'm trying to get my brain around this, but this method seems to give
undue weight to the amount of attempts without due regard for the
accuracy of the shooter. For example, using this formula, I have
Iverson ranked 27 out of 212 players that I have ranked even though
he is below league average in 3pt% and fg% and jacks them up at an
alarming rate.
• ... Well, 3pt% wouldn t matter too much in the grand scheme of things since they are only a small portion of the shots he takes. FG% doesn t makes any
Message 2 of 9 , Oct 17, 2003
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "rose7654" <rose7654@...>
> To: <APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 6:35 PM
> Subject: [APBR_analysis] Re: Shooting percentages
>
>
> --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, igor eduardo küpfer
> <igorkupfer@r...> wrote:
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "rose7654" <rose7654@y...>
> > To: <APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 3:58 PM
> > Subject: [APBR_analysis] Shooting percentages
> >
> >
> > > Hi, just stumbled into this group. Maybe somebody can help:
> > >
> > > Is there a formula/ratio for adjusting fg% to account for the
> number
> > > of attempts a player takes? For example, a player that shoots 48%
> > > and averages 16 shots a game, in my opinion, should be valued
> higher
> > > as a shooter than a player that shoots 52% but only averages 4
> shots
> > > a game.
> > >
> > > Anybody have thoughts on how to account for this in ranking
> players?
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> >
> > There's a few ways -- none, I think, recognized as the ultimate.
> Here's one:
> >
> > FGpts - misses (ie FGM * 3 + 3FGM - FGA)
> >
> > For example, here are the numbers for three players:
> >
> > fgm fga 3m pts
> > a 5 20 2 12 -3
> > b 50 200 20 120 -30
> > c 100 200 20 220 0
> > d 150 200 30 330 100
> >
> > ed
>
>
> I'm trying to get my brain around this, but this method seems to give
> undue weight to the amount of attempts without due regard for the
> accuracy of the shooter. For example, using this formula, I have
> Iverson ranked 27 out of 212 players that I have ranked even though
> he is below league average in 3pt% and fg% and jacks them up at an
> alarming rate.
>
>

Well, 3pt% wouldn't matter too much in the grand scheme of things since they
are only a small portion of the shots he takes. FG% doesn't makes any
distinction between the types of shots taken, which is why I used EffFG%.
Iverson's Eff is 44%, about 3% lower than the league average. Iverson makes
a _lot_ of baskets over the course of a season. These are the elements that
go into the calculations.

It's up to you to weight the elements in whatever way you feel reflects
their overall importance. For me, a the fact that AI accounts for about 1/3
of his team's scoring is more important than the fact that he does so
shooting 3% lower than the league average. It's not at all clear to me how
valuable that 3% is, but it's very clear how valuable 30 points is. My model
reflects the perceived relative importance of these elements implicitly.

Like I said before, there's no agreed upon method. Weight the elements
differently if you wish -- play around until you get an answer that looks
right. Every rating scheme must go through this laugh test.

ed
• ... since they ... EffFG%. ... Iverson makes ... elements that ... about 1/3 ... me how ... My model ... looks ... Ed s right here. You can really weight them
Message 3 of 9 , Oct 18, 2003
--- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, igor eduardo küpfer
> >
>
> Well, 3pt% wouldn't matter too much in the grand scheme of things
since they
> are only a small portion of the shots he takes. FG% doesn't makes any
> distinction between the types of shots taken, which is why I used
EffFG%.
> Iverson's Eff is 44%, about 3% lower than the league average.
Iverson makes
> a _lot_ of baskets over the course of a season. These are the
elements that
> go into the calculations.
>
> It's up to you to weight the elements in whatever way you feel reflects
> their overall importance. For me, a the fact that AI accounts for
> of his team's scoring is more important than the fact that he does so
> shooting 3% lower than the league average. It's not at all clear to
me how
> valuable that 3% is, but it's very clear how valuable 30 points is.
My model
> reflects the perceived relative importance of these elements implicitly.
>
> Like I said before, there's no agreed upon method. Weight the elements
> differently if you wish -- play around until you get an answer that
looks
> right. Every rating scheme must go through this laugh test.

Ed's right here. You can really weight them however you like.
Because the value of being able to launch a lot of shots depends on
context. One of the teams I was involved with was horrible. We had a
guy who shot all the time for a while and it didn't make anyone
better. But there are definitely cases where one guy who can shoot a
lot even if not accurate -- like Iverson -- is valuable to his
teammates. He has been surrounded for a while by guys who are pretty
decent shooters if they only take the shots they're comfortable with.
Eric Snow is a huge beneficiary of Iverson. He would be a pretty bad
player if he had to do what Gary Payton was doing in Seattle (when
Snow was his backup), shooting a fair amount, dominating possessions.
Similarly with Iverson, though. If he is shooting 30+% of his team's
shots at 40% while other guys can handle bigger loads, then that's a
problem, too. AI distributed nicely in the Olympic quals, which he
may have to do more with Robinson around, who is ok at getting his
shot off.

Anyway, there is no good theory for how to weight accuracy vs ability
to get shot off. MikeG's statement about what guys would have as ppg
if they were stuck together was interesting and actually potentially
testable.

DeanO
• ... any ... reflects ... does so ... to ... is. ... implicitly. ... elements ... that ... had a ... a ... pretty ... with. ... bad ... possessions. ... team s
Message 4 of 9 , Oct 19, 2003
--- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, "Dean Oliver" <deano@r...>
wrote:
> --- In APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com, igor eduardo küpfer
> > >
> >
> > Well, 3pt% wouldn't matter too much in the grand scheme of things
> since they
> > are only a small portion of the shots he takes. FG% doesn't makes
any
> > distinction between the types of shots taken, which is why I used
> EffFG%.
> > Iverson's Eff is 44%, about 3% lower than the league average.
> Iverson makes
> > a _lot_ of baskets over the course of a season. These are the
> elements that
> > go into the calculations.
> >
> > It's up to you to weight the elements in whatever way you feel
reflects
> > their overall importance. For me, a the fact that AI accounts for
> > of his team's scoring is more important than the fact that he
does so
> > shooting 3% lower than the league average. It's not at all clear
to
> me how
> > valuable that 3% is, but it's very clear how valuable 30 points
is.
> My model
> > reflects the perceived relative importance of these elements
implicitly.
> >
> > Like I said before, there's no agreed upon method. Weight the
elements
> > differently if you wish -- play around until you get an answer
that
> looks
> > right. Every rating scheme must go through this laugh test.
>
> Ed's right here. You can really weight them however you like.
> Because the value of being able to launch a lot of shots depends on
> context. One of the teams I was involved with was horrible. We
> guy who shot all the time for a while and it didn't make anyone
> better. But there are definitely cases where one guy who can shoot
a
> lot even if not accurate -- like Iverson -- is valuable to his
> teammates. He has been surrounded for a while by guys who are
pretty
> decent shooters if they only take the shots they're comfortable
with.
> Eric Snow is a huge beneficiary of Iverson. He would be a pretty
> player if he had to do what Gary Payton was doing in Seattle (when
> Snow was his backup), shooting a fair amount, dominating
possessions.
> Similarly with Iverson, though. If he is shooting 30+% of his
team's
> shots at 40% while other guys can handle bigger loads, then that's a
> problem, too. AI distributed nicely in the Olympic quals, which he
> may have to do more with Robinson around, who is ok at getting his
> shot off.
>
> Anyway, there is no good theory for how to weight accuracy vs
ability
> to get shot off. MikeG's statement about what guys would have as
ppg
> if they were stuck together was interesting and actually potentially
> testable.
>
> DeanO

The only way that I have come up with to rank the accuracy of a
player's shooting while accounting for attempts--ie creating a way to
value the 48% shooter on 16 attempts higher than the 52% shooter on 4
attempts--is as follows:

1) assign everyone that has considerably less than the league average
in attempts some standard number, say everyone who shoots less than 6
times a game gets ranked 110;
2)everyone that has more than 6 attempts, and higher than the league
average in fg% gets ranked 1-110.
3)everyone that has more than 6 attempts, and lower than the league
average in fg% gets ranked 110-220.
4)then adjust for attempts as follows:
a) higher than league avg in fg% and between 10-14 attempts per
game, subtract 10 from ranking
b) higher than league avg in fg% and between 14-18 attempts per
game, subtract 20 from ranking
c) higher than league avg in fg% and between 18-24 attempts per
game, subtract 30 from ranking
d) lower than league avg in fg% and between 10-14 attempts per game,
e) lower than league avg in fg% and between 14-18 attempts per game,
f) lower than league avg in fg% and between 18-24 attempts per game,

Just for kicks: using this system yields a list like this for fg%
(interesting to note Antoine Walker last on this list and some of the
other "superstars" near the bottom):

ShaquilleO'Neal
Kevin Garnett
Tim Duncan
Eddy Curry
Matt Harpring
Pau Gasol
Carlos Boozer
P.J. Brown
Elton Brand
Nene Hilario
Richard Jefferson
Raef LaFrentz
Jermaine O'Neal
Brian Grant
Calbert Cheaney
Jerome Williams
Yao Ming
Kurt Thomas
Keith VanHorn
Antawn Jamison
Grant Hill
Peja Stojakovic
Wally Szczerbiak
Andrei Kirilenko
Shareef Abdur-Rahim
Vince Carter
Dirk Nowitzki
John Stockton
Rasheed Wallace
Shane Battier
Chris Webber
Sam Cassell
Kenyon Martin
Stromile Swift
Mike Bibby
Michael Redd
Jamaal Magloire
Doug Christie
Larry Hughes
Amare Stoudemire
Karl Malone
Kerry Kittles
Gary Payton
Eric Piatkowski
Steve Nash
Shawn Marion
Bobby Jackson
Kobe Bryant
Tony Parker
Donyell Marshall
Marcus Fizer
Kenny Thomas
Theo Ratliff
Drew Gooden
Juwan Howard
Rashard Lewis
Malik Rose
Brent Barry
Wesley Person
Allan Houston
LorenzenWright
Desmond Mason
Corliss Williamson
Eric Snow
Troy Murphy
Corey Maggette
Derrick Coleman
AnferneeHardaway
Donnell Harvey
Scottie Pippen
Tim Thomas
Richard Hamilton
Eric Williams
Jim Jackson
Reggie Miller
Ben Wallace
ChristianLaettner
Robert Horry
David Robinson
ClarenceWeatherspoon
Dale Davis
Tony Battie
Erick Dampier
Stephen Jackson
Tyson Chandler
Keon Clark
Devean George
Anthony Mason
Joe Smith
Bruce Bowen
Charlie Ward
Shawn Kemp
Dikembe Mutombo
Kwame Brown
Ira Newble
Walter McCarty
Othella Harrington
Rodney Rogers
Mehmet Okur
Ruben Patterson
Jelani McCoy
Chris Mihm
Zachary Randolph
Emanuel Ginobili
Aaron Williams
Marko Jaric
Elden Campbell
Kenny Anderson
Jon Barry
Earl Boykins
Jonathan Bender
Kevin Ollie
Shandon Anderson
Rod Strickland
Bob Sura
Hedo Turkoglu
Mike Dunleavy
Jacque Vaughn
Erick Strickland
Steve Smith
Chris Whitney
Keyon Dooling
Jeff McInnis
Derek Fisher
Zydrunas Ilgauskas
David Wells
Jumaine Jones
Lamar Odom
Alvin Williams
Tyronn Lue
Gordan Giricek
Maurice Taylor
Toni Kukoc
Mike Miller
Al Harrington
Ray Allen
Cuttino Mobley
Glen Rice
Aaron McKie
David Wesley
Dion Glover
Steve Francis
Stephon Marbury
Malik Allen
Jason Terry
Kendall Gill
Ron Artest
Troy Hudson
Rick Fox
Gilbert Arenas
Michael Olowokandi
Nick VanExel
Derek Anderson
Pat Garrity
Howard Eisley
Tony Delk
Eddie Jones
Glenn Robinson
Rafer Alston
Anthony Peeler
Chauncey Billups
Michael Finley
Lucious Harris
Jamal Crawford
Caron Butler
Predrag Drobnjak
James Posey
Darius Miles
Marcus Camby
Darrell Armstrong
Ron Mercer
Rodney White
Baron Davis
Jamal Mashburn
Jason Kidd
Jason Richardson
Paul Pierce
Eddie Griffin
Antonio Davis
Andre Miller
Jay Williams
Joe Johnson
Allen Iverson
Jamaal Tinsley
Travis Best
Voshon Lenard
ShammondWilliams
Jerry Stackhouse
Vincent Yarbrough
Clifford Robinson
Ricky Davis
Latrell Sprewell
Eddie House
CourtneyAlexander
Damon Stoudamire
Morris Peterson
Mike James
Quentin Richardson
Jalen Rose
J.R. Bremer
Jason Williams
Rasual Butler
Chucky Atkins
Dajuan Wagner
Lindsey Hunter
Antoine Walker
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.