are points per shot important?

[Ralph]

Seems like they are. If you shoot 30% from 3 you make .9 point per shot. if you shoot 55% from 2 you make 1.1 points per shot. More points per shot seems like a good idea. So....

Christyn 27% from 3 is .81 points per shot. 58.7% from 2 is 1.17 points per shot. Take only 2 pointers.

Liv 23% from 3 is .69 points per shot. 62.7% from 2 is 1.25 points per shot. If you shoot a 3 we will shoot you. That may not be allowed to be said nowadays, so maybe just we will bench you if you shoot a 3.

Evina 35.6% from 3 is 1.07 points per shot 66% from 2 is 1.32 points per shot. Take either but favor the 2

Paige 55.1% from 3 is 1.65 points per shot 57.1% from 2 is 1.14 points per shot. don't you ever pass up a 3 so you can dribble closer for a 2.


would be interesting to do this comparing pull up jumpers to layups. Liv would probably show, don't take anything past 5 feet from the basket.

 

[hoophuskee]

Seems like they are. If you shoot 30% from 3 you make .9 point per shot. if you shoot 55% from 2 you make 1.1 points per shot. More points per shot seems like a good idea. So....

Christyn 27% from 3 is .81 points per shot. 58.7% from 2 is 1.17 points per shot. Take only 2 pointers.

Liv 23% from 3 is .69 points per shot. 62.7% from 2 is 1.25 points per shot. If you shoot a 3 we will shoot you. That may not be allowed to be said nowadays, so maybe just we will bench you if you shoot a 3.

Evina 35.6% from 3 is 1.07 points per shot 66% from 2 is 1.32 points per shot. Take either but favor the 2

Paige 55.1% from 3 is 1.65 points per shot 57.1% from 2 is 1.14 points per shot. don't you ever pass up a 3 so you can dribble closer for a 2.


would be interesting to do this comparing pull up jumpers to layups. Liv would probably show, don't take anything past 5 feet from the basket.

EFG% calculator gives you an idea.

Paige right now has an EFG% of 65.02. It's better in terms of shooting efficiency than the best season's of either Steph Curry or LeBron James. Better than Shaquille O"Neal's best and Abdul-Jabbar's best. Also - only one year with 10 or more FGA's attempted did Wilt surpass 65%.

 

[Sicilian]

Wow, that explains the slide rule that Christyn carries in her non shooting hand when she is missing all those shots.

 

[Gurleyman]

Seems like they are. If you shoot 30% from 3 you make .9 point per shot. if you shoot 55% from 2 you make 1.1 points per shot. More points per shot seems like a good idea. So....

Christyn 27% from 3 is .81 points per shot. 58.7% from 2 is 1.17 points per shot. Take only 2 pointers.

Liv 23% from 3 is .69 points per shot. 62.7% from 2 is 1.25 points per shot. If you shoot a 3 we will shoot you. That may not be allowed to be said nowadays, so maybe just we will bench you if you shoot a 3.

Evina 35.6% from 3 is 1.07 points per shot 66% from 2 is 1.32 points per shot. Take either but favor the 2

Paige 55.1% from 3 is 1.65 points per shot 57.1% from 2 is 1.14 points per shot. don't you ever pass up a 3 so you can dribble closer for a 2.


would be interesting to do this comparing pull up jumpers to layups. Liv would probably show, don't take anything past 5 feet from the basket.

That’s the math, and it certainly speaks the truth - but at the same time, it is worth pointing out that Paige was 4-4 from just inside the 3 point line against SC in crunch time because that was where she could take the best rhythm jumpers in the small openings she had. Changing direction to the three point line to take something less in rhythm and more contested probably results in a miss ... and a loss.

All things being equal, shoot the 3 and not the 18 footer every time. But things aren’t always equal.

 

[Zorro]

Carried to its natural conclusion, only Paige should shoot and she should only shoot 3s.

 

[stamfordhusky]

Effective FG% is definitely useful. But it is not a precise methodology because it doesn't incorporate fouls drawn. Two point attempts generate far more fouls, which help a team in three ways without generating a FGA in the box score: (1) two FT's without a FGA; (2) get an opponent in foul trouble; and (3) allow the shooter's team to get into the bonus situation faster.

Just as a guess, an average player with a good ability to go to the basket might have to shoot 45% on two-point attempts to produce as much benefit as hitting 35% on threes. But of course, the exact equivalent depends on the player.

 

[eebmg]

Carried to its natural conclusion, only Paige should shoot and she should only shoot 3s.

and only the ones that go in.

 

[hoophuskee]

Effective FG% is definitely useful. But it is not a precise methodology because it doesn't incorporate fouls drawn. Two point attempts generate far more fouls, which help a team in three ways without generating a FGA in the box score: (1) two FT's without a FGA; (2) get an opponent in foul trouble; and (3) allow the shooter's team to get into the bonus situation faster.

Just as a guess, an average player with a good ability to go to the basket might have to shoot 45% on two-point attempts to produce as much benefit as hitting 35% on threes. But of course, the exact equivalent depends on the player.

The OP spoke of shooting.

As for EFG%- it's a methodology for shooting efficiency. Fouls drawn is not part of it shooting efficiency.

 

[Ralph]

Effective FG% is definitely useful. But it is not a precise methodology because it doesn't incorporate fouls drawn. Two point attempts generate far more fouls, which help a team in three ways without generating a FGA in the box score: (1) two FT's without a FGA; (2) get an opponent in foul trouble; and (3) allow the shooter's team to get into the bonus situation faster.

Just as a guess, an average player with a good ability to go to the basket might have to shoot 45% on two-point attempts to produce as much benefit as hitting 35% on threes. But of course, the exact equivalent depends on the player.

assuming they make the free throws? so we need to work on those.

 

[Ralph]

Carried to its natural conclusion, only Paige should shoot and she should only shoot 3s.

until they focus the defense better, and that then opens up the other shots with less defense, better percentage made. But for now Geno is right, she should shoot more threes. Until her arm falls off.

 

[oldhusky]

In Paige's case, Geno's push for her to me more aggressive looking for her own shot shot fits with the numbers. Her shooting efficiency of course has been almost unbelievable, but her Usage Rate is above average, but nowhere close to "superstar" level. Last time I looked she had a Usage rate around 23-24. For that stat 20 is average, but some dominant players have rates close to 30, meaning they are making things happen far more than the average player.

With Nika assuming more of the PG role she is assuming a bigger scoring role as she should. She could increase her volume scoring and if she lost a little on efficiency, still be very very efficient, and ahead of most of her teammates. If defenses game-plan more to stop her scoring, good passes to open players will be the trade off. Pick your poison.

 

[chrissaran]

It shows efficiency.

 

[CocoHusky]

Yes it is at least Doug Collins thinks so. Doug went from coaching Michael Jordan to announcing and he always stated the most important metric to measure a scorer is Points/ FG attempt. Anything above 1point per shot attempt was outstanding in Doug's estimation .

 

[itsasport]

Threes rally put a dagger iinto the opponent , It s also more important when they are made than how many- e.g. the SC game and Christyn's came in the first half when they were most needed.

But for the errant toe, which was still a made 2, she would have been 4-5 for threes.

 

[MD#12Fan]

When I was coming up I got lucky to be exposed to some great programs and some of the emphases they had. I worked as a counselor at Coach K's summer basketball camp at Duke and from what I understood at the time UNC did similar stuff.
The biggee was your efficiency by possession. So, obviously you kept track of # of possessions and points per possession. Definitely accounted for offensive rebounds, which if converted improved that efficiency. IMO it's a flaw in your system to count a second shot attempt as just another shot. It's more valuable than that. All those plays that AG makes are absolutely huge to our efficiency.
Another indice that the bigtime programs focused on, back in the day, was deflections. They were tallied even if the ball wasn't stolen. Just the idea of doing things on defense that got your hands on the ball. Turnovers would happen naturally. With UConn, I've been disappointed in that lately. Not seeing deflected balls. We are not the best at the fundamental of trapping. Not so much being in the right place, but not executing the trap. Hands up, no reaching, and moving your feet like a defensive slide. 2 different situations- trapping the ball that has lost their dribble and trapping when the dribble is still alive.

 

[EasyEd]

To me the efficiency is what's important. The more people with high efficiency will make for a great team. I always felt sorry for teams that depended on one player to take 25 shots a game to score their 20 points. Yeah, 20 points is a good scoring outing, but it limits the ability of other players from being able to contribute. I like how UConn tries to find the "best" shot rather than feed a particular player. The only thing I wish is that they would make a good pass to the player that is working hard to get open or in good position. I think ONO could be a lot more effective if they got her the ball when she worked hard to get good position. If they did, maybe she wouldn't take so many 20 ft jumpers.

 

[Boreifs]

Effective FG% is definitely useful. But it is not a precise methodology because it doesn't incorporate fouls drawn. Two point attempts generate far more fouls, which help a team in three ways without generating a FGA in the box score: (1) two FT's without a FGA; (2) get an opponent in foul trouble; and (3) allow the shooter's team to get into the bonus situation faster.

Just as a guess, an average player with a good ability to go to the basket might have to shoot 45% on two-point attempts to produce as much benefit as hitting 35% on threes. But of course, the exact equivalent depends on the player.

52 per cent from two, to be precise.

 

[oldhusky]

Regardless of how you measure it, the ability to draw fouls and make free throws is an important part of the total. Something that surprised me many years ago, was when I read an article that indicated that the range between players that foul a lot and those that foul very rarely, and the range in values between players that draw many fouls and those that don't is about the same.

Put another way, the probability of a foul occurring is as dependent on the offensive player as the defensive player.
Some players are very rarely fouled. Usually spot up three point shooters for example. If they rarely drive, take it to the basket, or even take many pull up jumpers close to defenders, they will not spend much time on the line. Interior players are fouled much more often, and then there are some good sized drivers like a James Hardin that are very hard not to foul.

The True Shooting Percentage stat as I understand it Incorporates all the relevant factors. Like the Effective Field Goal percentage it adjusts for the value of a three pointer, but then it also adds in adjustments for free throws, both FT% and how often fouls are drawn.

Think of it this way. If you are fouled while shooting, you get two free throws instead of a field goal attempt. If you are even a relatively poor FT shooter (say 60%) and about a 50% 2pt shooter, then getting fouled is a good thing that increases your effectiveness, replacing a 50% shot with a 60% shot. True Shooting Percentage transfers FT attempts and makes into the equivalent number of FG attempts. One % that combines two pointers, three pointers, drawing fouls, and FT% into one number. For all but a few, the TS% will be higher than EFG% because most shoot a higher FT% than FG%, but for a player like Shaq that might not be true.

One site that uses this stat is www.sports-reference.com, which is good for NBA, WNBA and men's college basketball, but doesn't provide data for women's college basketball.