FG%. Why do even a few percentages matter?

[Brick Rick]

Take guards for example. If a SG is shooting 45% it's considered good or at least on the border of it. But if he's shooting 42%, it's considered subpar and by ish standards he's chucking bricks all game. Is there really that much disparity between shooting 42% and shooting 45% over the course of a season? Don't get me wrong, I'm not questioning this standard as anyone who follows a player over the course of his career notices those few differences in percentage just by watching the games.

But what does it really mean to shoot 42% as opposed to 45? It means for every 100 shots you take, you're making a measly 3 less shots. Now assume the player in question is a serious chucker, who shoots on average 20 shots a game (not including free throws). That means over the course of 5 games he will have attempted his 100 shots and made 42, 3 less than what would be considered a respectable shooting percentage in that 5 game span. That's 6 points lost. Now assuming in that 5 game span, the chucker's team lost 3 times, each time by a point, if he had been a 45% shooter, those 3 games would have been wins. But we know not every game is decided by one basket.

I mean what I'm getting at is, assuming you have a superstar guard who throws up 20 shots a game and shoots 42%, over the course of a regular season, how many more wins would he have had, had he just shot 45%? This is difficult to gauge because there are so many variables at play here and the point differential in wins/losses can be anywhere from 1 point to 40 in each game.

So getting back to this hypothetical 20 fga attemps/game 42% chucker, he can be relied on to make 3 less shots every five games than his 45% counterpart. That's 6 points he'll never get back through 5 games. 12 points through 10 games. 48 points through 40. 96 points through 80. And finally 100 points through a full 82 game season.

Again, that's 100 less points (which translates to just above 1 less PPG) he scores than the 45% shooter. The question then becomes how important those 100 lost points were for those 82 games.

[Chief Keef]

Single Player FG% doesn't really correlate with wins imo.


Russell Westbrook shoots 42% FG this season, and 43% career FG, yet he's been considered the best/one of the best Guards in the NBA. He takes the most shots on his team, and if his FG% went up, it would probably only mean that he is taking less shots. Players like Kevin Durant and LeBron James are great scorers , they shoot above 50%, but they are only taking like 15 shots a game.

That's why I don't really look at FG% too much


It's really about making the right plays at the right time, and doing as much as you can for your team. Playing good defense as well. And as a scorer, you shouldn't let a bad shooting night throw your entire game off.

[Young X]

Wasted possessions matter.

[andremiller07]

Single Player FG% doesn't really correlate with wins imo.


Russell Westbrook shoots 42% FG this season, and 43% career FG, yet he's been considered the best/one of the best Guards in the NBA. He takes the most shots on his team, and if his FG% went up, it would probably only mean that he is taking less shots. Players like Kevin Durant and LeBron James are great scorers , they shoot above 50%, but they are only taking like 15 shots a game.

That's why I don't really look at FG% too much


It's really about making the right plays at the right time, and doing as much as you can for your team. Playing good defense as well. And as a scorer, you shouldn't let a bad shooting night throw your entire game off.

I agree impact on a game>FG%

[Micku]

Assuming if a player had 20 FGA, and shot 42% over the course of a NBA season, this means that either he was consistent at 42% or he had major inconsistency of shooting a bit above and lower than 42%.

Those shots that were missed, another player made those shots. It won't matter that much over small sample size like five games, assuming the player shoots 20 shots per game.

But over the course of a normal 82 game season, if he kept shooting 20 shots throughtout the season, that's 1640 shots. The miss/made shots will add up over the course of the season. And you would rather take that person who would shoot 45% of his shots than the 42% in the offensive column because it shows who is the more efficient at making their shots, especially assuming they take the same amount of shots. Lower percentage also means possessions weren't efficient.

However, the impact of those shots are more important in close games.

[francesco totti]

its stupid.
8 - 20 is 40 %, 10 - 20 just 2 more shots is 50%. not a big difference.
now imagine if those 2 shots were at the end of the quarter from midcourt ...lol

[Heavincent]

It doesn't matter.

[Brick Rick]

its stupid.
8 - 20 is 40 %, 10 - 20 just 2 more shots is 50%. not a big difference.
now imagine if those 2 shots were at the end of the quarter from midcourt ...lol

no wonder some players intentionally wait out the clock before attempting a half court shot, it can mean the difference between being WestBrick or GOATBrook.

[DatAsh]

It doesn't matter.

That's a silly statement. Of course it matters, the question is how much. Assuming all other variables held constant, a player shooting 50% is more valuable than a player shooting 45%.

[Micku]

its stupid.
8 - 20 is 40 %, 10 - 20 just 2 more shots is 50%. not a big difference.
now imagine if those 2 shots were at the end of the quarter from midcourt ...lol

Imagine if player A shot 40% and shot 20 shots a game over the course of the 82 game season. Imagine of those shots were just 2s. And player B shot 50%, played the amount of games, and shot the same amount of shots. And we won't take account of the FTs.

Player A would average 16 ppg with his 40% shooting. This player made 656 of his shots.

Player B would average 20 ppg with his 50% shooting. This player made 820 of his shots.

There's a difference between 164 shots made/miss between them. That's also 164 more possessions. I think this will matters over the long haul on the efficiency.

But this doesn't take account of the other ways of scoring and the impact someone has on the team. But obviously it matters.

[PyrrhusX]

its stupid.
8 - 20 is 40 %, 10 - 20 just 2 more shots is 50%. not a big difference.
now imagine if those 2 shots were at the end of the quarter from midcourt ...lol

When a game comes down to a shot or two, then it will matter. Lots of NBA games have gone to the wire and in many of those games the scoreline is relatively close. Thats when I feel fg% is important. The way you are putting it is that 40% is just as good as 50%. 9 times out of 10 Id rather have an individual on my team shoot the higher percentile.

The only time fg% wont matter, imo, is when teams are blowing or getting blown out. There are many instances where just one more made shot is the difference between losing and winning the game.

[Carbine]

It doesn't for penetrating players who collapse defenses.

For example, a slashing guard could get into the lane.....attempt a lay up while getting the bigs to help out and leave their man.

Said player misses lay up, but since the big men have to rotate to help it leaves the offensive big men in great position for offensive put backs or rebounds.

Now if you're shooting jumpers all the time that's a different story.

[Odinn]

A single game, pretty small sample size. When you look at the whole playoffs or season or career, that 3% difference is like hundreds/thousands of points. And when you get back at your sample size, single game, it can be 2 or 3 ppg difference and generally winning teams get their wins by 8-9 points margin at most.

So. Yeah. It's a pretty big deal.

[bmulls]

Also a missed basket is not just missing 2 points for your team, often times it sets up a fast break for your opponent.

[longtime lurker]

It doesn't matter.

Correction it only matters when its Kobe

[stephanieg]

On a team level shooting efficiency is the most important aspect of winning basketball. If a player can't be an efficient scorer he can still contribute on offense by being a beast on net possessions (rebounds, steals, limiting TOs) or getting large assist numbers. For PGs you can make an argument that it doesn't matter if they're efficient as long as the offense of the team is good enough since they're the ones running it. But it would be even better if the PG was more efficient.

FG% has never been a good measure though, although you'll see it on network TV and such because either they're stupid or they assume the audience wouldn't be comfortable with TS or efg or pps (although you'll see that last one every once in awhile). You can have really low FG% and still be incredibly efficient if you hit threes or get to the line a lot.

[FKAri]

A single game, pretty small sample size. When you look at the whole playoffs or season or career, that 3% difference is like hundreds/thousands of points. And when you get back at your sample size, single game, it can be 2 or 3 ppg difference and generally winning teams get their wins by 8-9 points margin at most.

So. Yeah. It's a pretty big deal.

/thread

[Jacks3]

FG% is useless. You should be looking at TS%, eFG%, and ORTG.

[ZenMaster]

its stupid.
8 - 20 is 40 %, 10 - 20 just 2 more shots is 50%. not a big difference.
now imagine if those 2 shots were at the end of the quarter from midcourt ...lol

Most games are decided by 3-9 points, the average is usually 6.something , so a 4 point difference is pretty big actually.

[guy]

One or two more missed shots per game adds up over the long haul. And by the way, you can't just say it only matters in the games that were decided by 1-4 points. So many games are a lot closer then the final score because of fouling at the end of games.

And like someone else said, a lot of times a missed shot ends up with an easier possession for the opponent, so it's not just 2 points.

It's definitely misleading to just look at a game or series FG% to determine if a player was having a bad performance, all other things equal. But it says a lot over the course of a season. And when we compare players, it's not wrong to take the littler things into account.

[Psileas]

A single game, pretty small sample size. When you look at the whole playoffs or season or career, that 3% difference is like hundreds/thousands of points. And when you get back at your sample size, single game, it can be 2 or 3 ppg difference and generally winning teams get their wins by 8-9 points margin at most.

So. Yeah. It's a pretty big deal.

This, good point. If 2 points of margin per game seem like an insignificant value, it might very well be the overall difference between a 40 and a 45 win team, and that's something generated by having a 40% 20 FGA chucker instead of just an average 45% 20 FGA scorer. 5 wins is not a small deal when this difference is generated by a single player.

[upside24]

Sometimes FG% is more of an indicator of quality shots taken.

Kobe and MJ are a good example.

Kobe IMO could have put up similar numbers and percentages to MJ if he would have taken quality high percentage shots like him.

MJ worked to get open looks and when he couldn't get one he would pass off while Kobe is willing to take a difficult shot, he has become known for making difficult shots because he takes so many.

MJ could have made those same shots, but missing them wouldn't put points on the board while passing out to a teammate could result in an open look.

Didn't mean to derail the thread, honestly. This is just the best most easily known example of why FG% means more than just shots made/missed.

[tmacattack33]

The average NBA game comes down to 6.2 points.

A difference of 5% in FG% equates to 1 shot every game for someone shooting 20 times per game. Well, actually TS% is what we'd be looking at...it's better than FG%.

That one shot (aka two points) would indeed be crucial, since the average game comes down to only 6 points.

[Odinn]

The average NBA game comes down to 6.2 points.

A difference of 5% in FG% equates to 1 shot every game for someone shooting 20 times per game. Well, actually TS% is what we'd be looking at...it's better than FG%.

That one shot (aka two points) would indeed be crucial, since the average game comes down to only 6 points.
I haven't seen a person which was able to explain that 0.44 multiplier. Someoned said it is used for eliminating "and ones". But why it isn't relative to that season's numbers? The advanced stat producers are not capable of counting and ones? Maybe they weren't capable at past, and aren't capable of doing it for '70s, but now?

Care to explain?

[I<3NBA]

why does even one point matter in a game? i mean just a few points couldn't really matter, can it?

[Glide2keva]

Correction it only matters when its Kobe
I was waiting for his name to be brought up, and there it is.

[Glide2keva]

The average NBA game comes down to 6.2 points.

A difference of 5% in FG% equates to 1 shot every game for someone shooting 20 times per game. Well, actually TS% is what we'd be looking at...it's better than FG%.

That one shot (aka two points) would indeed be crucial, since the average game comes down to only 6 points.:facepalm

[Glide2keva]

Sometimes FG% is more of an indicator of quality shots taken.

Kobe and MJ are a good example.

Kobe IMO could have put up similar numbers and percentages to MJ if he would have taken quality high percentage shots like him.

MJ worked to get open looks and when he couldn't get one he would pass off while Kobe is willing to take a difficult shot, he has become known for making difficult shots because he takes so many.

MJ could have made those same shots, but missing them wouldn't put points on the board while passing out to a teammate could result in an open look.

Didn't mean to derail the thread, honestly. This is just the best most easily known example of why FG% means more than just shots made/missed.

/thread

[ace23]

Why are we trying to quantify something that's already concrete? The difference in percentage is how much it matters. :oldlol:

[poido123]

Correction it only matters when its Kobe

Its fans like you who make us dislike Kobe. You cannot help yourself but defend him in every thread. You seem to think everyone has it in for Kobe because they are jealous or something, if that was the case people would be hating on every star player, but why Kobe so much? He's a dick, he chucks shots and plays hero ball, he runs his own players under the bus, he was accused of rape, he tries too hard to be like Mike don't deny it, his resume is better than what he actually is, and his fanatic fans are unbearable like yourself :facepalm

Now have a think about that, then realise why alot of people don't like him as much as you do.

[jdm_dc_fan]

OP is a Dwill homer and is trying to justify his bad start.

[poido123]

I was waiting for his name to be brought up, and there it is.

He doesn't miss any thread that could be about Kobe. Guy is insecure.

[guy]

Sometimes FG% is more of an indicator of quality shots taken.

Kobe and MJ are a good example.

Kobe IMO could have put up similar numbers and percentages to MJ if he would have taken quality high percentage shots like him.

MJ worked to get open looks and when he couldn't get one he would pass off while Kobe is willing to take a difficult shot, he has become known for making difficult shots because he takes so many.

MJ could have made those same shots, but missing them wouldn't put points on the board while passing out to a teammate could result in an open look.

Didn't mean to derail the thread, honestly. This is just the best most easily known example of why FG% means more than just shots made/missed.

Actually, FG% does mean just about that. All you pointed too was that Jordan was a much better decision-maker then Kobe, making him a more efficient scorer, which resulted in higher %s for him. You just gave us reasons why he would make more, (not to mention he was a better athlete which gave him a better ability to take certain shots that Kobe couldn't have taken.) And nothing indicates that Kobe could've ever had that high of a PPG and FG% at the same time considering Jordan still took more shots then Kobe usually did and still had a higher FG% with his higher PPG.

Maybe I'm wrong but I think what you're trying to say is that a higher FG% doesn't indicate a better scorer, which I agree with. But Kobe/Jordan is a horrible example. Something like Kobe and Tyson Chandler would be a much better one.

[Segatti]

Consider 40% as 8/20 from the field and 50% as 10/20 is a mistake. Generally the 40% guy will have much more games sub 40% for example, and sub 40% almost always hurt the team.

[longtime lurker]

Its fans like you who make us dislike Kobe. You cannot help yourself but defend him in every thread. You seem to think everyone has it in for Kobe because they are jealous or something, if that was the case people would be hating on every star player, but why Kobe so much? He's a dick, he chucks shots and plays hero ball, he runs his own players under the bus, he was accused of rape, he tries too hard to be like Mike don't deny it, his resume is better than what he actually is, and his fanatic fans are unbearable like yourself :facepalm

Now have a think about that, then realise why alot of people don't like him as much as you do.

:oldlol: I couldn't give two shits if you like Kobe or not I'm not his publicist or agent. It's clowns like you that crack me up because it's obvious you have some insane dislike for the man yet 99% of your posts are literally about Kobe or the Lakers. You're an obsessed loser. Just look at the bolded you list a whole bunch of irrelevant reasons to dislike Kobe that are not actually related to basketball. Fvcking clown ass tool popping up after every Lakers loss to repeat the same bullshit you sound like a broken record.

[upside24]

Actually, FG% does mean just about that. All you pointed too was that Jordan was a much better decision-maker then Kobe, making him a more efficient scorer, which resulted in higher %s for him. You just gave us reasons why he would make more, (not to mention he was a better athlete which gave him a better ability to take certain shots that Kobe couldn't have taken.) And nothing indicates that Kobe could've ever had that high of a PPG and FG% at the same time considering Jordan still took more shots then Kobe usually did and still had a higher FG% with his higher PPG.

Maybe I'm wrong but I think what you're trying to say is that a higher FG% doesn't indicate a better scorer, which I agree with. But Kobe/Jordan is a horrible example. Something like Kobe and Tyson Chandler would be a much better one.
Obviously when comparing FG% of Chandler and Kobe you understand that one relies on PNR dunks and doesn't take any shots outside of 6 feet compared to a guy that shoots numerous threes and takes primarily jumpshots.

Chandler is by no means the better offensive player despite his superior FG%, that number has to be taken in context.

That's not the point of my post though.

My point was to illustrate how much shot selection and decision making affect FG%. Thus the MJ/Kobe comparison.

[longtime lurker]

Actually field goal % doesn't really matter as long as a player is getting to the line at a good rate. Would you rather have a guy shoot 10/20 and get 0 free throw attempts or 8/20 with 10 attempts a game? You have to look at the game in context.

[guy]

Obviously when comparing FG% of Chandler and Kobe you understand that one relies on PNR dunks and doesn't take any shots outside of 6 feet compared to a guy that shoots numerous threes and takes primarily jumpshots.

Chandler is by no means the better offensive player despite his superior FG%, that number has to be taken in context.

That's not the point of my post though.

My point was to illustrate how much shot selection and decision making affect FG%. Thus the MJ/Kobe comparison.

Well I think people understand that. The OPs contention seemed to be why is someone a relative chucker I.E. worse decision maker then someone else just cause they have a lower FG% even if its not by much.

[tpols]

I don't know if anyone said it but it's the distribution that hurts. If I shoot 40 percent that means I could have games of 6/20, 12/20, and 2/10. Those two games of poor shooting probably led to the losses. Now if I shot 50 percent those games would've been 9/20, 12/20, and 4/10. Really shitty games become mediocre ones so it's a lot better.

[Graviton]

Actually field goal % doesn't really matter as long as a player is getting to the line at a good rate. Would you rather have a guy shoot 10/20 and get 0 free throw attempts or 8/20 with 10 attempts a game? You have to look at the game in context.
Exactly, points per possesion are the only thing that matters. Kobe/Westbrook can shoot 42-45%, but because they get to the line so often and make 3s, they still remain efficient. As long as you have more points than shot attempts, you are fine.

[poido123]

:oldlol: I couldn't give two shits if you like Kobe or not I'm not his publicist or agent. It's clowns like you that crack me up because it's obvious you have some insane dislike for the man yet 99% of your posts are literally about Kobe or the Lakers. You're an obsessed loser. Just look at the bolded you list a whole bunch of irrelevant reasons to dislike Kobe that are not actually related to basketball. Fvcking clown ass tool popping up after every Lakers loss to repeat the same bullshit you sound like a broken record.

So chucking shots and hero ball is nothing to do with basketball :lol

Your in every Kobe thread defending him, I post in a lot of Kobe threads to annoy you and other Kobe nut riders, but I also post in a lot of game threads and other team threads. You assume too much, and your point of views suck.

[upside24]

Well I think people understand that. The OPs contention seemed to be why is someone a relative chucker I.E. worse decision maker then someone else just cause they have a lower FG% even if its not by much.
I understand.:cheers:

[longtime lurker]

So chucking shots and hero ball is nothing to do with basketball :lol

Your in every Kobe thread defending him, I post in a lot of Kobe threads to annoy you and other Kobe nut riders, but I also post in a lot of game threads and other team threads. You assume too much, and your point of views suck.

Yes and all the relevant stuff like being a dick, accused of rape and trying to be like Mike are all basketball related too. :rolleyes: Anyways it's funny you ASSume that you actually annoy me, I actually don't have a problem with you other than the fact that you're a fvcking idiot. You admit you troll but I've seen a lot better trolling attempts. Step your game up

[longtime lurker]

Exactly, points per possesion are the only thing that matters. Kobe/Westbrook can shoot 42-45%, but because they get to the line so often and make 3s, they still remain efficient. As long as you have more points than shot attempts, you are fine.

Bingo! A player could take score 30 points on 30 shots with a 50 FG % and he would have played an efficient game, but he still took 30 shots to get 30 points. What would the brilliant ISH critics say about that one? Like I said FG % only matters for certain players.

[poido123]

Yes and all the relevant stuff like being a dick, accused of rape and trying to be like Mike are all basketball related too. :rolleyes: Anyways it's funny you ASSume that you actually annoy me, I actually don't have a problem with you other than the fact that you're a fvcking idiot. You admit you troll but I've seen a lot better trolling attempts. Step your game up

:facepalm

[Micku]

Exactly, points per possesion are the only thing that matters. Kobe/Westbrook can shoot 42-45%, but because they get to the line so often and make 3s, they still remain efficient. As long as you have more points than shot attempts, you are fine.

I think that's seeing how efficient you are as a scorer. Like TS% seems to show that because it takes account the 3pt shot and FT. But I don't think it should be a indication on the shots you take on the floor because the opponent cannot defend the FTs obviously. You can take FTs with technical fouls, intentional fouls, and stuff. eFG may the best indication because it takes the account of the 3 and opponent can guard you.

But as someone else said, FG% seems like good indication to see if someone has good shot selection or not.

[Graviton]

I think that's seeing how efficient you are as a scorer. Like TS% seems to show that because it takes account the 3pt shot and FT. But I don't think it should be a indication on the shots you take on the floor because the opponent cannot defend the FTs obviously. You can take FTs with technical fouls, intentional fouls, and stuff. eFG may the best indication because it takes the account of the 3 and opponent can guard you.

But as someone else said, FG% seems like good indication to see if someone has good shot selection or not.
In Westbrook's case, FG% is a little deceiving. While at times he gets trigger happy with 3s, often times he gets fouled in the paint with no whistle. Those non calls count as missed shots. When he keeps getting hammered without calls, that's when he starts jacking up jumpers and ruining his FG%. The end of shotclock crap he throws up a lot don't help either.

[guy]

Exactly, points per possesion are the only thing that matters. Kobe/Westbrook can shoot 42-45%, but because they get to the line so often and make 3s, they still remain efficient. As long as you have more points than shot attempts, you are fine.

Well the criticism comes as a result of who they are compared to and who they're playing with. I don't think people think Kobe/Westbrook are bad players in the sense that there teams would be better off without them. Thats nonsense. But in Kobe's case, he's compared to Jordan, and more recently players like Lebron and Durant, while playing with players like Gasol, Bynum, and Howard. A lot of those players also get to the line around the same or more as well. It would be one thing if he's getting to the line alot more then them, but he's not.

In Westbrook's case, his FG and FT attempts take up just as many possessions as Durant, when Durant is clearly more efficient. Thats where the criticism comes.