Basketball Analytics Discussion Thread
Goto page Previous  1, 2

 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> General Basketball Discussion Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 82218
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 3:53 pm    Post subject:

ringfinger wrote:
Ok, I’ll gripe about stats. Haha. I think the real “true shooting” is eFG% and not TS%.


Only if you are looking for less accuracy. Free throws are a vital part of knowing how efficient a player is..
_________________
Tolerance is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. A peace treaty is not a suicide pact.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 82218
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 3:54 pm    Post subject:

HOF Rookie wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
HOF Rookie wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
An assist is a pass, and that means someone else has the ball. Think of a possession is something that ends that possession. A shot, free throw, or turnover. Any other action continues the same possession. This way only one player is awarded each possession.


Gotcha. I know this is a popular metric, but the more I think about it, the more something just feels like it's missing something.


You may want to add something on for your purposes, but usage is really meant to encapsulate a percentage of possessions a player terminates. It’s good for that purpose. A player who passes on a lot of his possessions (regardless of the further actions by the player receiving the pass) should have a lower usage than a guy who shoots or gets fouled or turns it over (although there’s a gray area in the turnover stat that penalizes passers, since that’s the majority of turnovers).


you're right. i guess my issue with the metric is that it doesn't tell me if the player is effective or not. it doesn't take into account made baskets/free throws and so the metric just looks at the 'black hole-ness' of a player.

i want to ultimately find or create a metric looks at touches and time of possession, coupled with things such as FGM/FGA/etc.


That's fine, but that's like criticizing rebound percentage because it doesn't tell you anything about turnovers or shooting. The stat is essentially a measure of how many of a team's possessions a player "uses" (ends) while on the floor. That's it's purpose. Wanting it to be a different stat is really pointless.
_________________
Tolerance is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. A peace treaty is not a suicide pact.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Mike@LG
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 10 Apr 2001
Posts: 59604
Location: Orange County, CA

PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 4:29 pm    Post subject:

tox wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
Ok, I’ll gripe about stats. Haha. I think the real “true shooting” is eFG% and not TS%.


Sure, if you want to see it that was. TS% is PPP (points per possession) divided by two. PPP is the real stat. It is divided by two because basketball fans have a hard time relating to a PPP of 1.1. If you say that the TS% is 55%, people can wrap their brains around it. PPP is scoring, eFG% is shooting.

Well, PPP traditionally includes turnovers as well.
It's probably most accurate to say TS% is "true efficiency" or something, whereas eFG% is "true shooting"


I'm the guy that still looks at just FG%, because regardless if it's a 2-pointer or 3-pointer, it'll just tell me if the dude just makes shots.
_________________
Resident Car Nut.
Troy Brown, Kevin Huerter, Chandler Hutchison, De'Anthony Melton, Jerome Robinson, Aaron Holiday, Bruce Brown, Donte Divincenzo, Josh Okogie
Jarred Vanderbilt, Landry Shamet, Alize Johnson
@Lakersoutsiders
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Baron Von Humongous
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 02 Jul 2015
Posts: 14437

PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 5:47 pm    Post subject:

This is the best thread in General Basketball since the DLo thread was locked.
_________________
Banana Head
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tox
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 13441

PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 9:29 pm    Post subject:

Mike@LG wrote:
tox wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
Ok, I’ll gripe about stats. Haha. I think the real “true shooting” is eFG% and not TS%.


Sure, if you want to see it that was. TS% is PPP (points per possession) divided by two. PPP is the real stat. It is divided by two because basketball fans have a hard time relating to a PPP of 1.1. If you say that the TS% is 55%, people can wrap their brains around it. PPP is scoring, eFG% is shooting.

Well, PPP traditionally includes turnovers as well.
It's probably most accurate to say TS% is "true efficiency" or something, whereas eFG% is "true shooting"


I'm the guy that still looks at just FG%, because regardless if it's a 2-pointer or 3-pointer, it'll just tell me if the dude just makes shots.

I mean Livingston shot 50% from the field and Curry shot 49.5%, and they play the same position. I have a hard time seeing how FG% isn't thoroughly outclassed by eFG%.
_________________
https://j.gifs.com/Rnqnbk.gif
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Mike@LG
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 10 Apr 2001
Posts: 59604
Location: Orange County, CA

PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 9:39 pm    Post subject:

tox wrote:
Mike@LG wrote:
tox wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
Ok, I’ll gripe about stats. Haha. I think the real “true shooting” is eFG% and not TS%.


Sure, if you want to see it that was. TS% is PPP (points per possession) divided by two. PPP is the real stat. It is divided by two because basketball fans have a hard time relating to a PPP of 1.1. If you say that the TS% is 55%, people can wrap their brains around it. PPP is scoring, eFG% is shooting.

Well, PPP traditionally includes turnovers as well.
It's probably most accurate to say TS% is "true efficiency" or something, whereas eFG% is "true shooting"


I'm the guy that still looks at just FG%, because regardless if it's a 2-pointer or 3-pointer, it'll just tell me if the dude just makes shots.

I mean Livingston shot 50% from the field and Curry shot 49.5%, and they play the same position. I have a hard time seeing how FG% isn't thoroughly outclassed by eFG%.


It's not about one stat being outclassed over the other. It's just, when Shaun Livingston shoots, I trust him to make it. Just because Draymond shoots, doesn't mean I trust that he'll make the shot. That's all that it means. This is also why Shaun Livingston is a high level role player, even if he isn't a primary shot creator.
_________________
Resident Car Nut.
Troy Brown, Kevin Huerter, Chandler Hutchison, De'Anthony Melton, Jerome Robinson, Aaron Holiday, Bruce Brown, Donte Divincenzo, Josh Okogie
Jarred Vanderbilt, Landry Shamet, Alize Johnson
@Lakersoutsiders
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tox
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 13441

PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 9:52 pm    Post subject:

Mike@LG wrote:
tox wrote:
Mike@LG wrote:
tox wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
ringfinger wrote:
Ok, I’ll gripe about stats. Haha. I think the real “true shooting” is eFG% and not TS%.


Sure, if you want to see it that was. TS% is PPP (points per possession) divided by two. PPP is the real stat. It is divided by two because basketball fans have a hard time relating to a PPP of 1.1. If you say that the TS% is 55%, people can wrap their brains around it. PPP is scoring, eFG% is shooting.

Well, PPP traditionally includes turnovers as well.
It's probably most accurate to say TS% is "true efficiency" or something, whereas eFG% is "true shooting"


I'm the guy that still looks at just FG%, because regardless if it's a 2-pointer or 3-pointer, it'll just tell me if the dude just makes shots.

I mean Livingston shot 50% from the field and Curry shot 49.5%, and they play the same position. I have a hard time seeing how FG% isn't thoroughly outclassed by eFG%.


It's not about one stat being outclassed over the other. It's just, when Shaun Livingston shoots, I trust him to make it. Just because Draymond shoots, doesn't mean I trust that he'll make the shot. That's all that it means. This is also why Shaun Livingston is a high level role player, even if he isn't a primary shot creator.

I see. I mean that is literally what FG% means -- maybe it's reasonable to trust Livingston to hit a shot more than Klay but of course that's because he shoots easier (i.e. closer) shots to begin with.
So I know what you're saying, I just don't really know why it matters whether you trust a guy to hit a shot versus how many points you'd expect (on average) for a player in a game to score given a certain number of shots (which is what eFG% and TS% improve upon)
_________________
https://j.gifs.com/Rnqnbk.gif
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Mike@LG
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 10 Apr 2001
Posts: 59604
Location: Orange County, CA

PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 7:54 am    Post subject:

Quote:
I just don't really know why it matters whether you trust a guy to hit a shot versus how many points you'd expect (on average) for a player in a game to score given a certain number of shots (which is what eFG% and TS% improve upon)


I think of it in terms of momentum. PPP affects the scoreboard, and I totally get that. But if a team has a bunch of legit FG% shooters/finishers/whatever their role is, it's a lot easier to build a quick scoring run/generate momentum/force a time out.

I'm under the impression that we live in a world of PPP, hence 20 point leads are no longer safe. It totally works too. But if you've got 5 guys like GSW does, where 3 guys are high FG% shooters and high PPP types, with a couple other high FG% shooters/players, those scoring runs are a blitz.

Like, of course you want the shots going to Durant, Curry, Klay. But if they're not going to get the shot, do you want it going to the guy that say, shoots 36% behind the arc for PPP sake? Or the dude that's going to shoot 50% from mid-range and in? I just think in this specific case, the mid-range and in guy, keeps the energy up and momentum going for the scoring run, that's all.
_________________
Resident Car Nut.
Troy Brown, Kevin Huerter, Chandler Hutchison, De'Anthony Melton, Jerome Robinson, Aaron Holiday, Bruce Brown, Donte Divincenzo, Josh Okogie
Jarred Vanderbilt, Landry Shamet, Alize Johnson
@Lakersoutsiders
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
HOF Rookie
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 09 Jun 2015
Posts: 1199

PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 7:50 pm    Post subject:

Omar Little wrote:
HOF Rookie wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
HOF Rookie wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
An assist is a pass, and that means someone else has the ball. Think of a possession is something that ends that possession. A shot, free throw, or turnover. Any other action continues the same possession. This way only one player is awarded each possession.


Gotcha. I know this is a popular metric, but the more I think about it, the more something just feels like it's missing something.


You may want to add something on for your purposes, but usage is really meant to encapsulate a percentage of possessions a player terminates. It’s good for that purpose. A player who passes on a lot of his possessions (regardless of the further actions by the player receiving the pass) should have a lower usage than a guy who shoots or gets fouled or turns it over (although there’s a gray area in the turnover stat that penalizes passers, since that’s the majority of turnovers).


you're right. i guess my issue with the metric is that it doesn't tell me if the player is effective or not. it doesn't take into account made baskets/free throws and so the metric just looks at the 'black hole-ness' of a player.

i want to ultimately find or create a metric looks at touches and time of possession, coupled with things such as FGM/FGA/etc.


That's fine, but that's like criticizing rebound percentage because it doesn't tell you anything about turnovers or shooting. The stat is essentially a measure of how many of a team's possessions a player "uses" (ends) while on the floor. That's it's purpose. Wanting it to be a different stat is really pointless.


that's fair, but then why include turnovers and shots? shots can have positive or negative results. a turnover is always a negative result. why not keep those metrics separate then?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 20590

PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2018 5:51 pm    Post subject:

^^^^

That’s a fair point. TS% and eFG% usually do not include turnovers. There are variations that do, such as the PPP stat that Tox mentioned.. If someone is quoting TS% or eFG%, turnovers are not part of the numbers.

From BR:

Quote:
TS%
True Shooting Percentage; the formula is PTS / (2 * TSA). True shooting percentage is a measure of shooting efficiency that takes into account field goals, 3-point field goals, and free throws.

TSA
True Shooting Attempts; the formula is FGA + 0.44 * FTA.


Translating that in something closer to English: TSA is the number of possessions that a player expends through FGs and FTs, with no addition for turnovers. PTS/TSA is points per shooting possession. The result is divided by 2.to make the result something easier to wrap your brain around. A TS% of .50 equates to a .50 FG%, if you took only two point shots and never took a free throw.

Quote:
eFG%
Effective Field Goal Percentage; the formula is (FG + 0.5 * 3P) / FGA. This statistic adjusts for the fact that a 3-point field goal is worth one more point than a 2-point field goal. For example, suppose Player A goes 4 for 10 with 2 threes, while Player B goes 5 for 10 with 0 threes. Each player would have 10 points from field goals, and thus would have the same effective field goal percentage (50%).


This formula does not include FTs or turnovers. It just provides a bonus for threes.

I had to dig around for a definition for PPP, because it is rarely used these days:

Quote:
PPP = PTS/POSS

POSS = FGA + 0.44*FTA + TOV


In concept, it’s a nice stat because it accounts for the fact that some players are less efficient as scorers because they turn the ball over a lot. In practice, it doesn’t add much. As you say, why not add in assists and rebounds, too? You wind up with a simplified version of PER, which doesn’t really add much to the analysis.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 20590

PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 9:33 am    Post subject:

The Backpicks guy rates the best playoff performers of the databall era:

http://www.backpicks.com/2018/06/10/aupm-2-0-the-top-playoff-performers-of-the-databall-era/

I would say that the most surprising thing about this list is the omissions: Tony Parker, Kevin Durant, Paul Pierce.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 82218
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 11:10 am    Post subject:

HOF Rookie wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
HOF Rookie wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
HOF Rookie wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
An assist is a pass, and that means someone else has the ball. Think of a possession is something that ends that possession. A shot, free throw, or turnover. Any other action continues the same possession. This way only one player is awarded each possession.


Gotcha. I know this is a popular metric, but the more I think about it, the more something just feels like it's missing something.


You may want to add something on for your purposes, but usage is really meant to encapsulate a percentage of possessions a player terminates. It’s good for that purpose. A player who passes on a lot of his possessions (regardless of the further actions by the player receiving the pass) should have a lower usage than a guy who shoots or gets fouled or turns it over (although there’s a gray area in the turnover stat that penalizes passers, since that’s the majority of turnovers).


you're right. i guess my issue with the metric is that it doesn't tell me if the player is effective or not. it doesn't take into account made baskets/free throws and so the metric just looks at the 'black hole-ness' of a player.

i want to ultimately find or create a metric looks at touches and time of possession, coupled with things such as FGM/FGA/etc.


That's fine, but that's like criticizing rebound percentage because it doesn't tell you anything about turnovers or shooting. The stat is essentially a measure of how many of a team's possessions a player "uses" (ends) while on the floor. That's it's purpose. Wanting it to be a different stat is really pointless.


that's fair, but then why include turnovers and shots? shots can have positive or negative results. a turnover is always a negative result. why not keep those metrics separate then?


Because usage is a measure of how many possessions a player used (ended). Full stop. Those are the things that end a possession. If you’d like to take usage and add things to it or subtract things from it to create a stat that blends usage with outcomes, great, I’d love a stat that does that. But again, you’re knocking a specific stat that measures a specific thing because it doesn’t measure something completely different. Are you mad because ppg doesn’t include fg%, or steals? Why not. It’s an incomplete measure without them, according to the logic you’re using. Same with usage. It measures one thing, that’s its job. It’s not a complete all in one stat any more than PPG or fg% or steals rate is.
_________________
Tolerance is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. A peace treaty is not a suicide pact.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
cathy78
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 21 Jan 2013
Posts: 900

PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 11:11 am    Post subject:

Mike@LG wrote:
Quote:
I just don't really know why it matters whether you trust a guy to hit a shot versus how many points you'd expect (on average) for a player in a game to score given a certain number of shots (which is what eFG% and TS% improve upon)


I think of it in terms of momentum. PPP affects the scoreboard, and I totally get that. But if a team has a bunch of legit FG% shooters/finishers/whatever their role is, it's a lot easier to build a quick scoring run/generate momentum/force a time out.

I'm under the impression that we live in a world of PPP, hence 20 point leads are no longer safe. It totally works too. But if you've got 5 guys like GSW does, where 3 guys are high FG% shooters and high PPP types, with a couple other high FG% shooters/players, those scoring runs are a blitz.

Like, of course you want the shots going to Durant, Curry, Klay. But if they're not going to get the shot, do you want it going to the guy that say, shoots 36% behind the arc for PPP sake? Or the dude that's going to shoot 50% from mid-range and in? I just think in this specific case, the mid-range and in guy, keeps the energy up and momentum going for the scoring run, that's all.

I guess it is hard to express "game psychology" in stats. But I'm convinced that it can have a big impact and in this specific case 2ptFG% of 50 might be better than 3ptFG% of 40. Even though plain numbers would say otherwise. Maybe face analysis of the players would be a start...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 20590

PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 12:08 pm    Post subject:

cathy78 wrote:
I guess it is hard to express "game psychology" in stats. But I'm convinced that it can have a big impact and in this specific case 2ptFG% of 50 might be better than 3ptFG% of 40. Even though plain numbers would say otherwise. Maybe face analysis of the players would be a start...


Sure, but here are some leaguewide shooting stats that are relevant to this point:

0-3 feet .658

3-10 feet .394

10-16 feet .415

16 feet to the three point line .400

Three point .362

So if you can get a shot within three feet, great. On average, that remains the most efficient shot in the game. Once you get outside of three feet, the two pointer is a lot less efficient than the three pointer. In fairness, these numbers are not precise enough to show us whether a four footer is that much of a drop off, but at some point past three feet the percentage drops like a rock.

The point is that there really is no such thing as a high percentage two unless you get to the rim. So if you can get to the rim, great. That keeps the momentum going. But if you are going to take a ten footer, you have only a marginally better chance of making the shot than if you took a three. The psychology argument doesn't work so well in that context.

Kobe was the best two point jump shooter of recent times. Let's look at his numbers for 2006, which was arguably his peak season. 33.1% of his shots were over 16 feet but inside the three point line. He made 42.1%, which is terrific. Still, even though he was just an average three point shooter, he made 34.7% that year. That's a difference of just 7.4%. Modern coaches and GMs would make him quit taking those long twos.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
cathy78
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 21 Jan 2013
Posts: 900

PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 1:27 pm    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
cathy78 wrote:
I guess it is hard to express "game psychology" in stats. But I'm convinced that it can have a big impact and in this specific case 2ptFG% of 50 might be better than 3ptFG% of 40. Even though plain numbers would say otherwise. Maybe face analysis of the players would be a start...


Sure, but here are some leaguewide shooting stats that are relevant to this point:

0-3 feet .658

3-10 feet .394

10-16 feet .415

16 feet to the three point line .400

Three point .362

So if you can get a shot within three feet, great. On average, that remains the most efficient shot in the game. Once you get outside of three feet, the two pointer is a lot less efficient than the three pointer. In fairness, these numbers are not precise enough to show us whether a four footer is that much of a drop off, but at some point past three feet the percentage drops like a rock.

The point is that there really is no such thing as a high percentage two unless you get to the rim. So if you can get to the rim, great. That keeps the momentum going. But if you are going to take a ten footer, you have only a marginally better chance of making the shot than if you took a three. The psychology argument doesn't work so well in that context.

Kobe was the best two point jump shooter of recent times. Let's look at his numbers for 2006, which was arguably his peak season. 33.1% of his shots were over 16 feet but inside the three point line. He made 42.1%, which is terrific. Still, even though he was just an average three point shooter, he made 34.7% that year. That's a difference of just 7.4%. Modern coaches and GMs would make him quit taking those long twos.

I'm absolutely with you on that. I just think it is not that easy.
How does 7.4% shots gone through the basket affect the opponent? Or the crowd and back to the players? Or just the chance to have 7.4% more rebounds and chances for a fast break. How many of those fast breaks lead to a real high percentage shot at the rim? How many fouls are committed between 3feet and the three point line compared to behind the three point line? ...

Ok, I give up. This is just too much data to collect and process. At least for me. But I wonder if anyone is trying?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 20590

PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 2:51 pm    Post subject:

^^^^

I've not heard of anyone trying to measure the psychological effect of a single shot, but there are people with teams parsing the data in ways that we never hear about in the media.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tox
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 13441

PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 12:10 am    Post subject:

Mike@LG wrote:
Quote:
I just don't really know why it matters whether you trust a guy to hit a shot versus how many points you'd expect (on average) for a player in a game to score given a certain number of shots (which is what eFG% and TS% improve upon)


I think of it in terms of momentum. PPP affects the scoreboard, and I totally get that. But if a team has a bunch of legit FG% shooters/finishers/whatever their role is, it's a lot easier to build a quick scoring run/generate momentum/force a time out.

I'm under the impression that we live in a world of PPP, hence 20 point leads are no longer safe. It totally works too. But if you've got 5 guys like GSW does, where 3 guys are high FG% shooters and high PPP types, with a couple other high FG% shooters/players, those scoring runs are a blitz.

Like, of course you want the shots going to Durant, Curry, Klay. But if they're not going to get the shot, do you want it going to the guy that say, shoots 36% behind the arc for PPP sake? Or the dude that's going to shoot 50% from mid-range and in? I just think in this specific case, the mid-range and in guy, keeps the energy up and momentum going for the scoring run, that's all.

Yeah I totally understand what you're saying here and I definitely do think that it's true. In this scenario FG% actually is the best tool. I would love to see some proper analysis that hypothesis tested, like if you're on a 6-0 run and you shoot a 2, does that tend to larger runs (e.g. 17-3) than if you shoot a 3? The latter has better PPP, the lower has higher odds of extending that 6-0. But that sounds like a legit academic research project so I'm not sure it'll ever get answered.
_________________
https://j.gifs.com/Rnqnbk.gif


Last edited by tox on Mon Jun 11, 2018 12:16 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tox
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 13441

PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 12:15 am    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
cathy78 wrote:
I guess it is hard to express "game psychology" in stats. But I'm convinced that it can have a big impact and in this specific case 2ptFG% of 50 might be better than 3ptFG% of 40. Even though plain numbers would say otherwise. Maybe face analysis of the players would be a start...


Sure, but here are some leaguewide shooting stats that are relevant to this point:

0-3 feet .658

3-10 feet .394

10-16 feet .415

16 feet to the three point line .400

Three point .362

So if you can get a shot within three feet, great. On average, that remains the most efficient shot in the game. Once you get outside of three feet, the two pointer is a lot less efficient than the three pointer. In fairness, these numbers are not precise enough to show us whether a four footer is that much of a drop off, but at some point past three feet the percentage drops like a rock.

The point is that there really is no such thing as a high percentage two unless you get to the rim. So if you can get to the rim, great. That keeps the momentum going. But if you are going to take a ten footer, you have only a marginally better chance of making the shot than if you took a three. The psychology argument doesn't work so well in that context.

Kobe was the best two point jump shooter of recent times. Let's look at his numbers for 2006, which was arguably his peak season. 33.1% of his shots were over 16 feet but inside the three point line. He made 42.1%, which is terrific. Still, even though he was just an average three point shooter, he made 34.7% that year. That's a difference of just 7.4%. Modern coaches and GMs would make him quit taking those long twos.

I don't think the drop off is at 4 feet or 5 feet. I bet if you did a 0-2 feet and then 2-10 feet analysis, it'd look similar. I think it's just layups and dunks (whatever distance those are at) that causes the huge spikes in efficiency.

And I also wouldn't say that a long 2 is a bad shot necessarily. Some guys (like Chris Paul and Dirk a few years ago, also Kobe the year he tore his Achilles) shoot at or near 50% from midrange, which is still below average PPP-wise. But in reality those guys probably shoot higher (60%?) on open midrange shots and much lower on contested ones. That 60% is important because the threat of this high ppp shot forces defenders to compromise their possession, allowing for more opportunities at the rim or forcing a double and therefore kicking it out.
_________________
https://j.gifs.com/Rnqnbk.gif
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 20590

PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 6:05 am    Post subject:

tox wrote:
And I also wouldn't say that a long 2 is a bad shot necessarily. Some guys (like Chris Paul and Dirk a few years ago, also Kobe the year he tore his Achilles) shoot at or near 50% from midrange, which is still below average PPP-wise. But in reality those guys probably shoot higher (60%?) on open midrange shots and much lower on contested ones. That 60% is important because the threat of this high ppp shot forces defenders to compromise their possession, allowing for more opportunities at the rim or forcing a double and therefore kicking it out.


That's true, but you're talking about a handful of players in a handful of seasons of their careers. As a generalized tactical choice, "let Dirk shoot the wide open 12 footer" is a bit narrow.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LakerLanny
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 24 Oct 2001
Posts: 41088

PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2018 4:34 pm    Post subject:

What would you analytics guys say is the best overall analytics stat for basketball as far as individual players?

And best offensive and defensive stat?
_________________
Love, Laker Lanny
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Mike@LG
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 10 Apr 2001
Posts: 59604
Location: Orange County, CA

PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2018 4:44 pm    Post subject:

LakerLanny wrote:
What would you analytics guys say is the best overall analytics stat for basketball as far as individual players?

And best offensive and defensive stat?


Use them in combination to get proper context. I don't think there's any one particular one that will tell you much.
_________________
Resident Car Nut.
Troy Brown, Kevin Huerter, Chandler Hutchison, De'Anthony Melton, Jerome Robinson, Aaron Holiday, Bruce Brown, Donte Divincenzo, Josh Okogie
Jarred Vanderbilt, Landry Shamet, Alize Johnson
@Lakersoutsiders
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 20590

PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2018 2:46 pm    Post subject:

I would say that RPM is the best single stat, but I agree with Mike that you should look at multiple stats.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
fiendishoc
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 8437
Location: The (real) short corner

PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 12:08 am    Post subject:

LakerLanny wrote:
What would you analytics guys say is the best overall analytics stat for basketball as far as individual players?

And best offensive and defensive stat?


Analytics are better used as a part of a comprehensive process rather than for outputting some sort of result.

I like to distinguish between measurements of factual information ("what actually happened") and editorializing analytics, which are those that take those measurements and combine them in some way to make some sort of point ("who is the better player").

Between the two I think the former, the factual information, is much more useful for making decisions that will help your basketball team. And of these types of metrics, I find PPP (points per possession) to have the right balance of information, versatility and simplicity.

Here are different types of PPP that are commonly used:
Player PPP - a measure of scoring efficiency
Offensive / defensive rating - team PPP at either end
Lineup off or def rating - PPP for 2-5 man lineups
Player off or def rating - PPP when player is on the floor
Play type Efficiency - PPP during a certain kind of action for either a player or a team

You can then extend that to an unlimited number of cases:
- what is the PPP when team gets an defensive rebound
- what is the PPP for a certain play call
- what is a team's PPP when the opposing team shoots the gap on a down screen for their best shooter?
- what are all of the above when x player is on the floor guarded by y player outside of garbage time, etc

So I would say always start with PPP within whatever context that you want to compare certain players, and then try to identify additional context that would help you determine how meaningful it is (were there a meaningful number of possessions ? Was it because they were sharing the floor with better players? Etc.)

Even with all that said, the objective is still to win the game. I wouldn't go so far to say that player x is absolutely "better" than player y solely because he tends to be more efficient.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 20590

PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2018 5:28 pm    Post subject:

Here is an interesting, though clearly imperfect, attempt to rate passers. It illustrates the difficulty of defining what exactly makes a passer effective and then finding a way to measure it.

http://www.backpicks.com/2018/07/15/nba-passer-ratings-since-1978/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> General Basketball Discussion All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2010 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB