FG% is the most overrated stat on ISH..

[tgan3]

I thought I like to address this once and for all.

Look at the Thunders, with Westbrook the chucker gone they should be infinitely better. It is the shot selectionist' wet dream. Durant the efficient scorer making efficient shots, no more of that low bball iq monkey of a player.

Yet what happened? They loss 2 straight when they won 3 previously.

Look at the Lakers, with Kobe the chucker gone, Lakers should be infinitely better. Again a shot selectionist' wet dream. Just pound the ball to Howard and Gasol = Wins.

Yet again? Sweep.

So simple, yet is not. Basketball is not purely a maths game. Volume scorers with albeit lower FG% are much maligned. You can't base a player's greatness on STATS!

To explain this phenomenon, I like to think that as much as a chucker Westbrook is, he is a dangerous offensive threat. He makes team defenses focus on him so that it can open up offense for other players like Durant and Co.

Shot selection is one thing, but it is overrated. If someone passes the ball to say player A, and player A only makes open shots/easy shots otherwise he passes. The person guarding player A knows that he won't drive/shoot, so his job on defense becomes much easier. If a player is guarding Westbrook, he has to always be on guard because Westbrook might pull up even for a contested shot, drive pass him for a layup or pass if he sees someone open. So even though he makes "stupid" shots in a sense he changes the game dynamics totally.

These "game dynamics" i'm talking about do not show in a box score. Thus, a box score freak might just pull up a game, see that Westbrook is a 41% FG shooter and thinks his the worst player in the planet.

This just makes total sense to why Lakers/Thunder with their chucker gone they seemingly falter though FG% formula equates that they should succeed.

[secund2nun]

FG is very important. LA was garbage in the regular season with Kobe, in the 2011 and 2012 playoffs with Kobe as well.

As for OKC, they LOST a good PG and replaced him with a scrub. Of course they fell off. Poor logic. FG is for comparing players.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

FG is very important. LA was garbage in the regular season with Kobe, in the 2011 and 2012 playoffs with Kobe as well.

As for OKC, they LOST a good PG and replaced him with a scrub. Of course they fell off. Poor logic. FG is for comparing players.

Terrible logic. :oldlol:

[tgan3]

FG is very important. LA was garbage in the regular season with Kobe, in the 2011 and 2012 playoffs with Kobe as well.

As for OKC, they LOST a good PG and replaced him with a scrub. Of course they fell off. Poor logic. FG is for comparing players.

LA was garbage in the regular season with KOBE????? R U SERIOUS?
He was the one that willed the Lakers team to the playoffs. He was a top 10 MVP candidate mind you.

Now you call westbrook a good PG? You hypocrite? Weren't everyone saying he was an inefficient chucker low bball iq/monkey etc?

Fg% is important, but those two guys are chuckers (Not necessarily bad). but people underlook the importance they are to their team because they are chuckers..

[chazzy]

FG is very important. LA was garbage in the regular season with Kobe
Their offense was 6th-8th all year

[gman]

Thats because your replacing Kobe with that Goudelock guy and Westbrook with Reggie Jackson. Replace them with an exact clone and the only difference is a higher FG% and the team is better. It's simple.

[buddha]

is your name We Todd?

[cotdt]

FG% doesn't taken into account a players' impact on improving his teammates' FG% by breaking apart defenses. Players like Westbrook and Kobe Bryant get teammates good shots and make clutch shots when it really matters.

One can easily run up their own FG% at the expense of teammates' FG% by taking the best shots themselves after dribbling the ball around, but if the double team comes, pass it to a teammate at 2 seconds left for a bail out shot. You get your 55% FG while the rest of the team shoots 35%. Congrats.

[tgan3]

Their offense was 6th-8th all year

You said "their" offense, now you blaming on Kobe alone? Kobe was a chucker and wasn't the best fg% wise but he was the best player.

[Mr. I'm So Rad]

Goatbrook's shot selection is only sometimes an issue as it relates to game management. I like his style (I like scoring PGs) but it's not his FG% that's an issue. It's just taking shots at the right time so it doesn't come back to bite your team in the ass.

[tgan3]

FG% doesn't taken into account a players' impact on improving his teammates' FG% by breaking apart defenses. Players like Westbrook and Kobe Bryant get teammates good shots and make clutch shots when it really matters.

One can easily run up their own FG% at the expense of teammates' FG% by taking the best shots themselves after dribbling the ball around, but if the double team comes, pass it to a teammate at 2 seconds left for a bail out shot. You get your 55% FG while the rest of the team shoots 35%. Congrats.

That's what exactly im trying to say. Thats also what Iverson's critics dont understand. Yes the 2001 Sixers were a great defense/rebounding team much like Lebron and Cavs. But Lebron didnt win a chip with the Cavs, he won it with Heat with other scoring options in Wade/Bosh.

[plowking]

Russell Westbrook is a big reason why his teammates have good FG%. He opens the whole game up for his team with his penetration. Its not so much his FG%, but his teams that he helps.

[tgan3]

Thats because your replacing Kobe with that Goudelock guy and Westbrook with Reggie Jackson. Replace them with an exact clone and the only difference is a higher FG% and the team is better. It's simple.

:biggums:

Do you have any idea what you talking about???

[chazzy]

You said "their" offense, now you blaming on Kobe alone? Kobe was a chucker and wasn't the best fg% wise but he was the best player.
No, I'm saying their offense was the 6th to 8th offense for most of the season, which is good

[Leftimage]

The biggest ISH gaffe with respects to FG% is the ''XYZ won't score this much, he's too concerned with his %'' argument... I doubt very many players let that dictate their game. Being efficient is an objective, not a requirement in most players' eyes.

[Scoooter]

FG% is like any other stat, you have to know the context, and that usually involves actually watching the game.

[Breezy]

You can be good and shoot a lower field goal percentage if you have other parts of your game to fall back on. But shooting a higher % is better. Plain and simple. Why do you think High scoring big men dominated for so long?

[tgan3]

The biggest ISH gaffe with respects to FG% is the ''XYZ won't score this much, he's too concerned with his %'' argument... I doubt very many players let that dictate their game. Being efficient is an objective, not a requirement in most players' eyes.

Again, does said XYZ player have the skill to even attempt that many FGA?

Again the skill to attempt to score is something that is overlooked again in ISH where only stats matters. Deandre Jordan is a guy who has a very high FG% on low shot attempts. Makes him sound like a dream player on ISH where shot selection is the ultimate goal and guys like Iverson are condemned to hell.

"So this Deandre Jordan guy must be trying to be efficient as possible"..These are what some ISHers might think.

Do you really believe this statement I just made? ISHers are naive.

The sad reality is no, Deandre Jordan even in his wildest dream would never possess the scoring abilities of Olajuwon. Hes not making low field goal attempts to preserve his high FG%. Its just that he doesn't have any F**king post moves and only scores scrappy points through dunks and alley oops. If he had half the scoring ability of Olajuwon, he'll sure as hell attempt 20 shots a game. That's the difference.

[salwan]

FG% is like any other stat, you have to know the context, and that usually involves actually watching the game.

This + what op said

[alleykat]

I thought I like to address this once and for all.

Look at the Thunders, with Westbrook the chucker gone they should be infinitely better. It is the shot selectionist' wet dream. Durant the efficient scorer making efficient shots, no more of that low bball iq monkey of a player.

Yet what happened? They loss 2 straight when they won 3 previously.

Look at the Lakers, with Kobe the chucker gone, Lakers should be infinitely better. Again a shot selectionist' wet dream. Just pound the ball to Howard and Gasol = Wins.

Yet again? Sweep.

So simple, yet is not. Basketball is not purely a maths game. Volume scorers with albeit lower FG% are much maligned. You can't base a player's greatness on STATS!

To explain this phenomenon, I like to think that as much as a chucker Westbrook is, he is a dangerous offensive threat. He makes team defenses focus on him so that it can open up offense for other players like Durant and Co.

Shot selection is one thing, but it is overrated. If someone passes the ball to say player A, and player A only makes open shots/easy shots otherwise he passes. The person guarding player A knows that he won't drive/shoot, so his job on defense becomes much easier. If a player is guarding Westbrook, he has to always be on guard because Westbrook might pull up even for a contested shot, drive pass him for a layup or pass if he sees someone open. So even though he makes "stupid" shots in a sense he changes the game dynamics totally.

These "game dynamics" i'm talking about do not show in a box score. Thus, a box score freak might just pull up a game, see that Westbrook is a 41% FG shooter and thinks his the worst player in the planet.

This just makes total sense to why Lakers/Thunder with their chucker gone they seemingly falter though FG% formula equates that they should succeed.

Not the definition of a chucker though. A chucker takes low percentage, even well contested shots and keeps on taking them when he has other options available like passing...

Quick question. How would you know that it opens up the offense for other players to score when it's only the chucker that shoots?

Kobe has been guilty of it, and most recently melo. Not saying they are bad players just that even if they draw the defense and open up the offense, they still take bad shots instead of making the right play and passing to an open teammate. That is why their FG is low. It does matter

[Nash]

Missed FG= giving the opponents a chance to score of a miss to cut the lead or build on it how the hell is it meaningless? The easier the game comes to you, the less oppurtunities you need to make a shot.

Also OP is seriously comparing Kobe and Westbrook to Goudelock and Reggie Jackson?

[chips93]

Goatbrook's shot selection is only sometimes an issue as it relates to game management. I like his style (I like scoring PGs) but it's not his FG% that's an issue. It's just taking shots at the right time so it doesn't come back to bite your team in the ass.

if he makes the shot, then its not a problem, so of course his FG% is an issue

[Bandito]

Why do people consider 45%FG bad again? Kobe worse season was last season when he shot a 43%...

[Rose'sACL]

Why do people consider 45%FG bad again? Kobe worse season was last season when he shot a 43%...
I know most lakers fans don't like to hear it but i think kobe needs a coach he respects. i really doubt coach spo would have won with kobe, durant and pau.
Spo would have been fired in LA after losing in the first season. Phil called kobe "uncoachable" and still kept coaching him later. what coach other than phil(or may be riley) can call kobe that and still be lakers' coach?

I think in the current league, you can only win with volume shooters who shoot worse than 47% fg is if you have a really good big man who is really good at offense like a shaq or get 2 big men who just keep getting offensive rebounds.I don't think lakers can win with dwight as he still thinks that he is some big offensive presence.
Be happy averaging 18ppg-16rpg.

at least in the current league, you can't win with a volume shooter like kobe or carmelo without having a top 5 defensive and top 5 rebounding team or just find a player like shaq.

[gengiskhan]

FG% doesn't taken into account a players' impact on improving his teammates' FG% by breaking apart defenses. Players like Westbrook and Kobe Bryant get teammates good shots and make clutch shots when it really matters.

One can easily run up their own FG% at the expense of teammates' FG% by taking the best shots themselves after dribbling the ball around, but if the double team comes, pass it to a teammate at 2 seconds left for a bail out shot. You get your 55% FG while the rest of the team shoots 35%. Congrats.

stop defending bad shot selector like Kobe. His 23 FGA to get to 27 PPG has destroyed LAL every regular season in past 3 yrs.

[longtime lurker]

I thought I like to address this once and for all.

Look at the Thunders, with Westbrook the chucker gone they should be infinitely better. It is the shot selectionist' wet dream. Durant the efficient scorer making efficient shots, no more of that low bball iq monkey of a player.

Yet what happened? They loss 2 straight when they won 3 previously.

Look at the Lakers, with Kobe the chucker gone, Lakers should be infinitely better. Again a shot selectionist' wet dream. Just pound the ball to Howard and Gasol = Wins.

Yet again? Sweep.

So simple, yet is not. Basketball is not purely a maths game. Volume scorers with albeit lower FG% are much maligned. You can't base a player's greatness on STATS!

To explain this phenomenon, I like to think that as much as a chucker Westbrook is, he is a dangerous offensive threat. He makes team defenses focus on him so that it can open up offense for other players like Durant and Co.

Shot selection is one thing, but it is overrated. If someone passes the ball to say player A, and player A only makes open shots/easy shots otherwise he passes. The person guarding player A knows that he won't drive/shoot, so his job on defense becomes much easier. If a player is guarding Westbrook, he has to always be on guard because Westbrook might pull up even for a contested shot, drive pass him for a layup or pass if he sees someone open. So even though he makes "stupid" shots in a sense he changes the game dynamics totally.

These "game dynamics" i'm talking about do not show in a box score. Thus, a box score freak might just pull up a game, see that Westbrook is a 41% FG shooter and thinks his the worst player in the planet.

This just makes total sense to why Lakers/Thunder with their chucker gone they seemingly falter though FG% formula equates that they should succeed.

Great post. Ans word of advice the majority of ISH posters are morons so it comes as no surprise they don't know what they're talking about when it comes to FG%

[Pointguard]

Sometimes the function of a player is to create chaos - not necessarily to be efficient (Allen Iverson and Derrick Rose come immediately to mind). If a team doesn't have creative scorers it becomes a necessity that a perpetrator get into the teeth of the defense as a priority. Obviously he must do something once he is there. Constant penetration demoralizes a defense. It tends to wear a team out. It gets players to bicker about missed assignments. It tends to get offensive rebounds... etc.. So it is sometimes the function of a player to seek defensive breakdowns as a priority. A worn out, bickering, confused defense will likely lose a game in the fourth quarter.

I do think that if you have other creative scorers or capable scorers then the priority of quality shots is important.

[WayOfWade]

Is FG% overrated? Probably. With players doing their best to keep it high kind of skews it. But is it really bad if a player wants to heighten his FG% and be more efficient? No, there is no problem with wanting to take the best shots available (not chucking up buzzer beaters though is inexcusable).
Is FG% overrated? I'd say so, but it is still very important and should be looked at as something players should strive to improve upon.

[dh144498]

Great post. Ans word of advice the majority of ISH posters are morons so it comes as no surprise they don't know what they're talking about when it comes to FG%

:applause:

all lebron stans: " ___ has a higher FG%, so he is higher on the all time list."
:lol

[gengiskhan]

LBJs 56%FG is the reason why MIA has the best record in the NBA.

Kobes 46%FG is the reason why LAL has the worse record in the NBA despite most talent on the west.

go figure!

PPG is the most overrated stat in the NBA because it does not factor in FGA & PPMinute.

FG% is the most IMPORTANT stat in the NBA. Nothing is more important than FG%. this is a singular reason why teams go on winning 60+ games & go on having Post Season success.

This yr LBJ with 56%FG

& Wade with 52%FG

is the reason MIA steamrolled through reg sea.

Compare that to kobe's 23FGA @ 46%FG :roll: :roll:

[DMAVS41]

I thought I like to address this once and for all.

Look at the Thunders, with Westbrook the chucker gone they should be infinitely better. It is the shot selectionist' wet dream. Durant the efficient scorer making efficient shots, no more of that low bball iq monkey of a player.

Yet what happened? They loss 2 straight when they won 3 previously.

Look at the Lakers, with Kobe the chucker gone, Lakers should be infinitely better. Again a shot selectionist' wet dream. Just pound the ball to Howard and Gasol = Wins.

Yet again? Sweep.

So simple, yet is not. Basketball is not purely a maths game. Volume scorers with albeit lower FG% are much maligned. You can't base a player's greatness on STATS!

To explain this phenomenon, I like to think that as much as a chucker Westbrook is, he is a dangerous offensive threat. He makes team defenses focus on him so that it can open up offense for other players like Durant and Co.

Shot selection is one thing, but it is overrated. If someone passes the ball to say player A, and player A only makes open shots/easy shots otherwise he passes. The person guarding player A knows that he won't drive/shoot, so his job on defense becomes much easier. If a player is guarding Westbrook, he has to always be on guard because Westbrook might pull up even for a contested shot, drive pass him for a layup or pass if he sees someone open. So even though he makes "stupid" shots in a sense he changes the game dynamics totally.

These "game dynamics" i'm talking about do not show in a box score. Thus, a box score freak might just pull up a game, see that Westbrook is a 41% FG shooter and thinks his the worst player in the planet.

This just makes total sense to why Lakers/Thunder with their chucker gone they seemingly falter though FG% formula equates that they should succeed.


Who honestly thinks Westbrook is a net negative on the Thunder? I doubt anyone would go as far to say that.

Westbrook is a great player...and does many more things than just score.

But, if we are just talking about offensive efficiency, Westbrook would be a hell of a lot better if he shot 53% like Tony Parker. Just the truth.

Doesn't mean he's not a great player...just means there is a lot of room for improvement in terms of offensive efficiency.

Kobe Bryant is universally accepted as a top 10 player of all time...yet he has shot under 45% in the playoffs for his career. So I don't get how it is such an over-rated thing.

[dh144498]

Who honestly thinks Westbrook is a net negative on the Thunder? I doubt anyone would go as far to say that.

Westbrook is a great player...and does many more things than just score.

But, if we are just talking about offensive efficiency, Westbrook would be a hell of a lot better if he shot 53% like Tony Parker. Just the truth.

Doesn't mean he's not a great player...just means there is a lot of room for improvement in terms of offensive efficiency.

Kobe Bryant is universally accepted as a top 10 player of all time...yet he has shot under 45% in the playoffs for his career. So I don't get how it is such an over-rated thing.

they both get scrutinized for their FG%.

[DMAVS41]

they both get scrutinized for their FG%.

As they should.

There is a difference between saying a guy should be more efficient...and saying he sucks overall as a player because he shoots under 45% or something.

The Westbrook thing the OP is talking about doesn't even make sense. Westbrook isn't a great player because of his fg%...in fact, Westbrook's efficiency from the field is his biggest weakness. He is a great player though.

So I don't get the correlation. Everyone accepts that guys like Westbrook and Rose are two of the best players in the league.

Using only fg% to judge a player is silly. But saying players like Rose and Westbrook should be more efficient is not silly.

You really think Rose shouldn't have been criticized for shooting less than 40$ overall in the playoffs in 11?

[Rose'sACL]

As they should.

There is a difference between saying a guy should be more efficient...and saying he sucks overall as a player because he shoots under 45% or something.

The Westbrook thing the OP is talking about doesn't even make sense. Westbrook isn't a great player because of his fg%...in fact, Westbrook's efficiency from the field is his biggest weakness. He is a great player though.

So I don't get the correlation. Everyone accepts that guys like Westbrook and Rose are two of the best players in the league.

Using only fg% to judge a player is silly. But saying players like Rose and Westbrook should be more efficient is not silly.

You really think Rose shouldn't have been criticized for shooting less than 40$ overall in the playoffs in 11?
That is why Pop is such a great coach. He gets mad at players even when they score but try to go for hard shots when easier shots are available. Most NBA fans don't care for things like those and one of the reason knicks didn't sweep Celtics.
If you tell a kobe fan that kobe should take better shots, they assume that you are saying that kobe is not a great player. lebron was told to do better in 4th quarter and kobe should be told to pass when he has to shoot over 2 defenders if his team mate is open unless that team mate is reggie evans.

[Ne 1]

The problem is too many people just look up box-scores and come to conclusions with an analysis that is just pure stat related. Let's say a player shoots 42% in one game and loses, yet shoots 38% in another game and wins hitting two 3's in the 4'th quarter: which is better? These stat geeks that harp on FG% will say the former is better and they're wrong. Not to mention FG% dosen't weigh in the extra value of making a 3pt field goal or a free throw.

But anyway FG% like any other stat has a purpose when taken in proper context. Statistics in and of themselves, particularly when one is making an argument using a single statistic, serve no purpose and of course don't tell the whole story.

[DMAVS41]

That is why Pop is such a great coach. He gets mad at players even when they score but try to go for hard shots when easier shots are available. Most NBA fans don't care for things like those and one of the reason knicks didn't sweep Celtics.
If you tell a kobe fan that kobe should take better shots, they assume that you are saying that kobe is not a great player. lebron was told to do better in 4th quarter and kobe should be told to pass when he has to shoot over 2 defenders if his team mate is open unless that team mate is reggie evans.

Yea. Melo is awesome...very good player. But he takes between 4 to 6 awful shots a game...more than even that these last two games.

He takes those shots....and he doesn't need to. He could create and then pass. He could attack instead of settling...etc.

He'd be a much better player if he cut out the fat in his game and only took 1 or 2 bad shots per game and not the 5 plus he has most of his career.

How on earth anyone can sit there and say Melo or Rose or Westbrook wouldn't be better if they took better shots is beyond me.

[MJ23forever]

FG% is what Batting Average is to baseball, an incomplete, uninformative. and outdated statistic.

[longtime lurker]

LBJs 56%FG is the reason why MIA has the best record in the NBA.

Kobes 46%FG is the reason why LAL has the worse record in the NBA despite most talent on the west.

go figure!

PPG is the most overrated stat in the NBA because it does not factor in FGA & PPMinute.

FG% is the most IMPORTANT stat in the NBA. Nothing is more important than FG%. this is a singular reason why teams go on winning 60+ games & go on having Post Season success.

This yr LBJ with 56%FG

& Wade with 52%FG

is the reason MIA steamrolled through reg sea.

Compare that to kobe's 23FGA @ 46%FG :roll: :roll:

Perfect example of the morons that infest this board.

[Pointguard]

Yea. Melo is awesome...very good player. But he takes between 4 to 6 awful shots a game...more than even that these last two games.

He takes those shots....and he doesn't need to. He could create and then pass. He could attack instead of settling...etc.

He'd be a much better player if he cut out the fat in his game and only took 1 or 2 bad shots per game and not the 5 plus he has most of his career.

How on earth anyone can sit there and say Melo or Rose or Westbrook wouldn't be better if they took better shots is beyond me.

Rose actually shoots very well for a PG career-wise. He had one tough year in the playoffs which everybody has. And he had to do that that year. So lets not get carried away.

[DMAVS41]

Rose actually shoots very well for a PG career-wise. He had one tough year in the playoffs which everybody has. And he had to do that that year. So lets not get carried away.

All I said was shooting sub 40% in the playoffs on high volume is almost never going to get the job done.

Which it isn't....and Rose would be a much better player if he passed a bit more and attacked a bit more rather than settling for so many 3's.

[NumberSix]

eFG% > FG% > TS%

[Pointguard]

All I said was shooting sub 40% in the playoffs on high volume is almost never going to get the job done.

You need to try looking at your favorite player Dirk. He's proves that false in a big way. His FG% in the last three games of most of his important series ('06, '07 and '11) is less that 40% without question. Even when he won it all he shot 37% in the last three games.

Rose never shot 38% in the playoffs with a guy 4 inches smaller than him and 30 pounds lighter - while loosing convincingly to an 8 seed and giving the reigns of the team up to a no name like Josh Howard.

[NumberSix]

You need to try looking at your favorite player Dirk. He's proves that false in a big way. His FG% in the last three games of most of his important series ('06, '07 and '11) is less that 40% without question. Even when he won it all he shot 37% in the last three games.

Rose never shot 38% in the playoffs with a guy 4 inches smaller than him and 30 pounds lighter - while loosing convincingly to an 8 seed and giving the reigns of the team up to a no name like Josh Howard.
Yeah, Dirk struggled with his shot in the finals. He didn't play bad. He was making good plays, shot just didn't fall.

There's a difference between playing well and playing dumb. There's a big difference between getting good shots and just missing and some retard chucking stupid shots.

[TheMarkMadsen]

eFG% > FG% > TS%

so then you would agree that a 24 year old Durant is a more efficient scorer than a 24,25, 26, & 27 year old Lebron :applause:

[NumberSix]

so then you would agree that a 24 year old Durant is a more efficient scorer than a 24,25, 26, & 27 year old Lebron :applause:
27? No. 24? Yes. 25-26 are debatable.

Has anybody ever debated that Durant is a better shooter than LeBron?

[TheMarkMadsen]

27? No. 24? Yes. 25-26 are debatable.

Has anybody ever debated that Durant is a better shooter than LeBron?

I didn't say anything about KD being a better shooter, i said that he was more efficient. This isn't about being a better shooter, it's about being more efficient. We all know Durant is a better shooter.

How was he not more efficient this year than Lebron at 27?

If we're going by your forumula which is efg%>fg%>ts% then he most certainly was a more efficient scorer at 24 than Lebron was at 27

Lebron at 27: eFG%: 55%
FG%: 53%
TS%: 60.5%

FTA per game for Lebron. 8.1


Durant at 24: eFG%: 56%
FG%: 51%
TS%: 65%

FTA per game for Durant: 8.6

Especially when you take into consideration that Lebron & Durant were getting to the line at basically the same rate, KD's 65% TS trumps Lebron's 60.5 TS%, all while having the higher eFG%.

And KD being a more efficient scorer at 24 than Lebron was at 25-26 isn't up for debate. Lebrons eFG% those 2 years don't match Durants from 24, also Lebrons TS% is 5-6 percentage points lower & his FG% at 25-26 is lower or equal to KD's at 24.

[razzredazzre]

FG% doesn't taken into account a players' impact on improving his teammates' FG% by breaking apart defenses. Players like Westbrook and Kobe Bryant get teammates good shots and make clutch shots when it really matters.

One can easily run up their own FG% at the expense of teammates' FG% by taking the best shots themselves after dribbling the ball around, but if the double team comes, pass it to a teammate at 2 seconds left for a bail out shot. You get your 55% FG while the rest of the team shoots 35%. Congrats.

Basically this. End thread.

Individual impact and talent in the game doesn't simply correlate to FG%. Maybe some aspects of the game can be discussed. But hasty judgments like saying X player loses the game b/c of his chucking and low FG%. Everything is relative.

[NumberSix]

I didn't say anything about KD being a better shooter, i said that he was more efficient. This isn't about being a better shooter, it's about being more efficient. We all know Durant is a better shooter.

How was he not more efficient this year than Lebron at 27?

If we're going by your forumula which is efg%>fg%>ts% then he most certainly was a more efficient scorer at 24 than Lebron was at 27

Lebron at 27: eFG%: 55%
FG%: 53%
TS%: 60.5%

FTA per game for Lebron. 8.1


Durant at 24: eFG%: 56%
FG%: 51%
TS%: 65%

FTA per game for Durant: 8.6

Especially when you take into consideration that Lebron & Durant were getting to the line at basically the same rate, KD's 65% TS trumps Lebron's 60.5 TS%, all while having the higher eFG%.

And KD being a more efficient scorer at 24 than Lebron was at 25-26 isn't up for debate. Lebrons eFG% those 2 years don't match Durants from 24, also Lebrons TS% is 5-6 percentage points lower & his FG% at 25-26 is lower or equal to KD's at 24.
Lol @ rounding LeBron down and Rounding Durant up.:roll:

Anyways, going by the real numbers, it's too close. They're both at 55%. Durant is a few tenths of a percent better than LeBron, but considering how softly Durant is officiated and bailed out, he's really missing more shots than go in the stats.

[Pointguard]

Yeah, Dirk struggled with his shot in the finals. He didn't play bad. He was making good plays, shot just didn't fall.

There's a difference between playing well and playing dumb. There's a big difference between getting good shots and just missing and some retard chucking stupid shots.
You didn't see the '07 series. If Rose had somebody taking over the team for him, and two guys scoring as much as he was, like Howard and Terry did in '07, and shooting more efficiently, he wouldn't look dumb. When Rose had help he shot the ball very well in the playoffs and against the best defensive teams in the league. Its just when his second and third best players were being benched and with nobody stepping up, and without the team having mastered too many offensive sets, things get desperate and you only got one player to bail you out.

[NumberSix]

You didn't see the '07 series. If Rose had somebody taking over the team for him, and two guys scoring as much as he was, like Howard and Terry did in '07, and shooting more efficiently, he wouldn't look dumb. When Rose had help he shot the ball very well in the playoffs and against the best defensive teams in the league. Its just when his second and third best players were being benched and with nobody stepping up, and without the team having mastered too many offensive sets, things get desperate and you only got one player to bail you out.
Who's talking about Derrick Rose?

[TheMarkMadsen]

Lol @ rounding LeBron down and Rounding Durant up.:roll:

Anyways, going by the real numbers, it's too close. They're both at 55%. Durant is a few tenths of a percent better than LeBron, but considering how softly Durant is officiated and bailed out, he's really missing more shots than go in the stats.

So where exactly did i round down for Lebron? at 27 his eFG% was 55.4? Please tell me how that's supposed to be rounded any higher than the 55% mark which i posted?

Lebron's field goal percentage was 53.1, i posted 53%, once again, where did i go wrong in rounding?

Durant's eFG% is 55.9, rounded up .1 and you get 56%..

Durants TS% was 64.7 rounded up to 65% If it's above 5..you round up.

Nice try :lol

Anyways
but considering how softly Durant is officiated and bailed out, he's really missing more shots than go in the stats.

Lebron FTA per game: age 24: 9.4 FTA per game
age 25: 10.2 FTA per game
age 26: 8.4 FTA per game.



Durant at 24 FTA per game: 8.7

[NumberSix]

So where exactly did i round down for Lebron? at 27 his eFG% was 55.4? Please tell me how that's supposed to be rounded any higher than the 55% mark which i posted?

Lebron's field goal percentage was 53.1, i posted 53%, once again, where did i go wrong in rounding?

Durant's eFG% is 55.9, rounded up .1 and you get 56%..

Durants TS% was 64.7 rounded up to 65% If it's above 5..you round up.

Nice try :lol

Anyways

Lebron FTA per game: age 24: 9.4 FTA per game
age 25: 10.2 FTA per game
age 26: 8.4 FTA per game.



Durant at 24 FTA per game: 8.7
Any reasonable person knows that Durant shooting more FTs than LeBron is a fcuking Joke.

LeBron SHOULD be averaging about 4 more FTs per game than Durant, let alone shooting LESS (fewer really) than KD. Complete joke.

[TheMarkMadsen]

Any reasonable person knows that Durant shooting more FTs than LeBron is a fcuking Joke.

LeBron SHOULD be averaging about 4 more FTs per game than Durant, let alone shooting LESS (fewer really) than KD. Complete joke.

so when your own standards of efficiency are used against you, you just keep changing the criteria until if fits your agenda?

[Redoks]

I agree with the OP that FG% is sometimes overrated and wrong readen. But it's legit when you compare, for example, Kobe and Michael Jordan. They pretty much had a similar gamestyle (well, nobody cames close to Jordan as an offensive threath), yet Jordan shot 50% and Kobe 45%. Is this a legit argument for Jordan>Kobe? I truly belive it. Their offensive game is pretty similar but Jordan is more efficient.

So what I want to say is that FG% should only be taken in account when comparing players with similar gamestyle.

[NumberSix]

so when your own standards of efficiency are used against you, you just keep changing the criteria until if fits your agenda?
If it's true, yes.

[La Frescobaldi]

I agree with the OP that FG% is sometimes overrated and wrong readen. But it's legit when you compare, for example, Kobe and Michael Jordan. They pretty much had a similar gamestyle (well, nobody cames close to Jordan as an offensive threath), yet Jordan shot 50% and Kobe 45%. Is this a legit argument for Jordan>Kobe? I truly belive it. Their offensive game is pretty similar but Jordan is more efficient.

So what I want to say is that FG% should only be taken in account when comparing players with similar gamestyle.
Yeah

And not ever used to compare a guard with a freaking center which is one of the stupendous failures you see on here a lot

[DMAVS41]

You need to try looking at your favorite player Dirk. He's proves that false in a big way. His FG% in the last three games of most of his important series ('06, '07 and '11) is less that 40% without question. Even when he won it all he shot 37% in the last three games.

Rose never shot 38% in the playoffs with a guy 4 inches smaller than him and 30 pounds lighter - while loosing convincingly to an 8 seed and giving the reigns of the team up to a no name like Josh Howard.

Well, Dirk lost in 06 and 07...and his efficiency was just not good enough. In 06, Dirk at least played well late in most of the games...although he did pull a Rose and miss a big free throw. Not two like Rose..and not as often...but he still missed a big free throw.

In 11? Same thing...although the flu game kind of skews things a bit.

But what does Dirk not shooting well at times have to do with what I said? It actually proves my point. If Dirk had been more efficient in 06 and 07...they might have won. And his play in the finals in 11 was overall good, but nothing special...he just got a ton of help and Lebron choked.

The difference? Let me explain it again...Rose shot horribly from the field and then choked late in games with turnovers, bad shooting, and missed free throws.

Rose also dominates the ball and his high volume shooting by it's very nature makes it harder on his teammates to get into the flow of the game. Dirk is the exact opposite.

But this isn't about Dirk vs Rose...you lost that debate long ago.

This is about any player shooting sub 40% in the playoffs. I don't care if it is Rose or Dirk or MJ...it's not good and it's not going to get it done in the long run.

And Rose shot 39.6% for the entire playoffs you moron. Dirk's efficiency was off the charts good for the entire run.

Owned...as usual.

[I.R.Beast]

Missed FG= giving the opponents a chance to score of a miss to cut the lead or build on it how the hell is it meaningless? The easier the game comes to you, the less oppurtunities you need to make a shot.

Also OP is seriously comparing Kobe and Westbrook to Goudelock and Reggie Jackson?
assuming the other team gets the rebound...you cant look at a missed shot as just a missed shot...it's important for particular players to stay aggressive so that the defense can't sag off and start honing in on other guys... besides... 44% is not a bad FG% and never has been...crying and complaining about FG%age is one thing but when the guy is shooting 44% and better it's just nitpicking...

[LAZERUSS]

FG% by itself, is just another stat that can be deceptive. Tyson Chandler can shoot .650, but let's ask him to score 20+ ppg and see how quickly that figure drops.

I was never a big fan of Iverson, but he was basically the 76ers entire offense in at least a couple of seasons. Someone had to take the shots.

Several of the great scorers would not be considered "efficient." Kobe, at his peak, was shooting below the league average in FG%. But, look at the roster he was saddled with in that season. Rick Barry was probably an average shooter, in terms of FG%, but he was a great scorer.

Steve Kerr was a great shooter, but not a great scorer. The difference? If he was open, he was likely going to make it. But if he was guarded, he had almost no chance. Conversely, players like Kobe, Barry, and AI could get their shots against any defense, or any number of defenders.

[Pointguard]

Rose also dominates the ball and his high volume shooting by it's very nature makes it harder on his teammates to get into the flow of the game. Dirk is the exact opposite.

Rose's function was to keep pounding the ball into the middle of the Heat defense. It was obvious that is what the coach told him to do because the Bulls couldn't beat the trap and they ran few offensive sets. Rose bailed them out all season and the Heat were able to throw the kitchen sink at Rose without any other Bulls' player stepping up. You remember Noah and Boozer, the 2nd and 3rd best players, were benched in the 4th quarter for being lost. The organization got after them for it. But if a team can't beat a trap, somebody is going to be taking bad shots.



This is about any player shooting sub 40% in the playoffs. I don't care if it is Rose or Dirk or MJ...it's not good and it's not going to get it done in the long run.
I explained to you in the three biggest times in Dirk's playoff career. The last three deciding games of two finals and when won MVP in the playoffs. In the final 3 championship games '06 and '11, Terry cumulatively scored about the same, made more FG and hit at a much higher than 38% clip than Dirk did.


And Rose shot 39.6% for the entire playoffs you moron. Dirk's efficiency was off the charts good for the entire run.

Owned...as usual.
:lol BeMADz you losing it again? What did Dirk shoot in the ENTIRE PLAYOFFS his MVP season? He shot 38% against a BAD defensive team while being guarded by a player 4 inches shorter than him during the humiliation. Another player, a career 4th option, that probably only a few people know here despite him being an active player now, had to take over the team from the MVP. Josh Howard was the main man making the stand for Dallas.

If we talking shooting percentage as being critical should I bring up Terry's proficiency in the 3 most critical games in both finals vs Dirk in the same games? That study will be really interesting for FG% arguments.

And You want to say Terry isn't a big time clutch player.

[ILLsmak]

The biggest ISH gaffe with respects to FG% is the ''XYZ won't score this much, he's too concerned with his %'' argument... I doubt very many players let that dictate their game. Being efficient is an objective, not a requirement in most players' eyes.

I bet they do.

It's not even about being efficient. It's literally about the percentages. Because as we should know... it doesn't equal efficiency.

As I posted before, imagine 5 shots a game that are taken that are terrible shots. Maybe end of quarter or end of shot clock. By trying to force the issue and getting a turnover or passing to someone else, their shooting percentage skyrockets.

When really, the outcome of those 5 plays could easily have been scoreless. So how is that inefficient? It's the same.

Some players take terrible shots. Kobe takes terrible shots. Jr Smith takes terrible shots. Westbrook, at times, takes terrible shots... Nick Young, too. Some guys are just insane about shooting, but for the most part guys who shoot 43% and are superstars are not bad.

Or imagine fast breaks. 3 on 1 break... guy running the floor and gets a lay up 5 times a game. It could have been a 2 on 1 score for someone else. I mean, it's hard to look at things that way because it seems like hate, but I think it's important to keep that in mind. If a guy is JUST a shooter... then shooting 43% is good, IMO. It's all about your percentages broken down by situation, but it's never like that.

I'd love to see a stat showing what players did in late clock situations or clutch situations and their FG% then. FG% is only overrated because it's hard to establish context without watching the game.

-Smak

[DatAsh]

FG% doesn't taken into account a players' impact on improving his teammates' FG% by breaking apart defenses. Players like Westbrook and Kobe Bryant get teammates good shots and make clutch shots when it really matters.

One can easily run up their own FG% at the expense of teammates' FG% by taking the best shots themselves after dribbling the ball around, but if the double team comes, pass it to a teammate at 2 seconds left for a bail out shot. You get your 55% FG while the rest of the team shoots 35%. Congrats.

This is easily the best post in this thread, as it touches on something that I've harped on for awhile now, yet hardly anyone really seems to grasp.

I see it on these boards all the time: "points are points, doesn't matter where they come from", "equal ppg, higher FG% is always better". In this very thread we have


But shooting a higher % is better. Plain and simple.

which is simply a false statement - when taken as an absolute. I'd say it tends to be true more often than not, but it's pretty easy to imagine a scenario in which it's not.

[DMAVS41]

Rose's function was to keep pounding the ball into the middle of the Heat defense. It was obvious that is what the coach told him to do because the Bulls couldn't beat the trap and they ran few offensive sets. Rose bailed them out all season and the Heat were able to throw the kitchen sink at Rose without any other Bulls' player stepping up. You remember Noah and Boozer, the 2nd and 3rd best players, were benched in the 4th quarter for being lost. The organization got after them for it. But if a team can't beat a trap, somebody is going to be taking bad shots.


I explained to you in the three biggest times in Dirk's playoff career. The last three deciding games of two finals and when won MVP in the playoffs. In the final 3 championship games '06 and '11, Terry cumulatively scored about the same, made more FG and hit at a much higher than 38% clip than Dirk did.

:lol BeMADz you losing it again? What did Dirk shoot in the ENTIRE PLAYOFFS his MVP season? He shot 38% against a BAD defensive team while being guarded by a player 4 inches shorter than him during the humiliation. Another player, a career 4th option, that probably only a few people know here despite him being an active player now, had to take over the team from the MVP. Josh Howard was the main man making the stand for Dallas.

If we talking shooting percentage as being critical should I bring up Terry's proficiency in the 3 most critical games in both finals vs Dirk in the same games? That study will be really interesting for FG% arguments.

And You want to say Terry isn't a big time clutch player.

Are you really this stupid? Dirk lost in 07 you ****ing moron. His lack of offensive efficiency was a huge reason why the Mavs lost.

You are so stupid that you can't see you are making my point for me. Shooting poorly over a 3 game stretch can be overcome with help and timely big shots and plays...like Dirk did in the 11 finals.

What can't be overcome is horrible efficiency throughout the playoffs (like Rose)...and then inept play late in games with choking at the ft line etc.

It's completely different.

Dirk is better than Rose...can't believe you are still on that.

And efficiency does matter. Shooting sub 40%...by any player...over the course of a playoff run is going to end poorly.

Dirk's efficiency in 07 is yet another example of this. Doesn't matter the player.

You are such a bitch made Rose fan. Go back to defending your boy about not playing some more...as you have been destroyed there as well.

Bu bu bu but...it was his job to jack up 9 threes a game and miss all of them....LOL

I've never seen a better supporting cast trashed the way Rose fans do with those Bulls teams. They are awesome. And fit perfectly around Rose. End of story. This year further proves it. Getting up 3-1 against a talented Nets team and now entering a game 7. Without Rose, without Deng, without Hinrich, with Noah and Nate nowhere near 100%. LOL...bitch made.

[Rockets(T-mac)]

FG% like any other stat can't solely determine whether a players is good/bad. Using it with actually watching and analyzing a players playing style will give you the whole picture.

I don't get why this is so hard for some people to understand. A player that shoots 40%, can still have a positive impact on a team, but more often than not, shooting 40% means you probably can't shoot very well, or you take some bad shots.

[DMAVS41]

FG% like any other stat can't not solely determine whether a players is good/bad. Using it with actually watching and analyzing a players playing style will give you the whole picture.

I don't get why this is so hard for some people to understand. A player that shoots 40%, can still have a positive impact on a team, but more often than not, shooting 40% means you probably can't shoot very well, or you take some bad shots.

But this is just a failure in logic for most people.

Westbrook would be better if shot 50% from the field. That is just a fact.

That doesn't mean that Westbrook isn't awesome as is.

The only time shooting a higher fg% is not better is if a player is actually turning down quality shots or not taking shots his team needs him to take in order to protect his fg%. End of qtr full length shots don't count for this.

Not to mention we are usually talking about the best players. So it's not like these are low volume guys. As a coach, you want players to care about makes and misses. It is absurd to act like taking more bad shots and missing more shots is a positive. It isn't.

You can certainly have a player shoot 40%...and have that player be better than a player that shoots 55%, but that isn't what we are really talking about.

And the black/white simplistic and narrow minded approach the morons have on here just needlessly clouds the issue.

It is not hard at all. FG% matters. And shooting a higher fg% is overall a positive.

[Rockets(T-mac)]

But this is just a failure in logic for most people.

Westbrook would be better if shot 50% from the field. That is just a fact.

That doesn't mean that Westbrook isn't awesome as is.

The only time shooting a higher fg% is not better is if a player is actually turning down quality shots or not taking shots his team needs him to take in order to protect his fg%. End of qtr full length shots don't count for this.

Not to mention we are usually talking about the best players. So it's not like these are low volume guys. As a coach, you want players to care about makes and misses. It is absurd to act like taking more bad shots and missing more shots is a positive. It isn't.

You can certainly have a player shoot 40%...and have that player be better than a player that shoots 55%, but that isn't what we are really talking about.

And the black/white simplistic and narrow minded approach the morons have on here just needlessly clouds the issue.

It is not hard at all. FG% matters. And shooting a higher fg% is overall a positive.I completely agree.

Players that play on bad teams, usually have lower FG% because the defense is focused on them and they usually take more shots and shots under pressure. This is the reason why Iverson never shot too well in Phily, but shot well in Denver. He didn't just become a better player suddenly, he just had less burden on him offensively. And like you said if Iverson shot 50% in philly while still carry the offense like he did, that would've made him a better player, can't really argue that.

People try to substitute modified FG% like eFG and TS for actually watching the game. You can make just as informed of an opinion by actually watching games and using the basic stats. The advanced stats do have their uses, but they are not the sole measuring stick when judging players.

[jrong]

So genius OP, do you think Joe Johnson's FG% mattered tonight?

Things I learn on ISH: it doesn't matter how many of your shots that you make.

A missed shot is the functional equivalent of a turnover unless your team gets the offensive rebound, except for the the fact that a turnover is more likely to lead to easy points for the other team (but, a missed shot can too, especially off a long rebound).

Every shot you take is a shot that you're teammates aren't taking. Every possession you use is a possession that nobody else on your team can use. You are responsible for it.

But, possessions don't matter in basketball, do they?

[DatAsh]

So genius OP, do you think Joe Johnson's FG% mattered tonight?

Things I learn on ISH: it doesn't matter how many of your shots that you make.

A missed shot is the functional equivalent of a turnover unless your team gets the offensive rebound, except for the the fact that a turnover is more likely to lead to easy points for the other team (but, a missed shot can too, especially off a long rebound).

Every shot you take is a shot that you're teammates aren't taking. Every possession you use is a possession that nobody else on your team can use. You are responsible for it.

But, possessions don't matter in basketball, do they?

I don't think you fully understand the opposing argument.

[jrong]

I don't think you fully understand the opposing argument.

I do. I just responded in brief. All I did was explain why FG% isn't not important, if you will. I didn't even get into the reasons why it is absolutely incredibly important.

And besides that, I just reread the original post, and he didn't just minimize the importance of FG%. He also downplayed the importance of shot selection too!

And to thoroughly dismantle the original argument, high FG% penetrators/ shot creators open up the floor for their teammates also and raise the percentages of those around them just as much as low FG% ones. They just make a lot more of their own shots too!

Don't poke the bear.

[ILLsmak]

So genius OP, do you think Joe Johnson's FG% mattered tonight?

Things I learn on ISH: it doesn't matter how many of your shots that you make.

A missed shot is the functional equivalent of a turnover unless your team gets the offensive rebound, except for the the fact that a turnover is more likely to lead to easy points for the other team (but, a missed shot can too, especially off a long rebound).

Every shot you take is a shot that you're teammates aren't taking. Every possession you use is a possession that nobody else on your team can use. You are responsible for it.

But, possessions don't matter in basketball, do they?

@ your first line. Of course FG% matters in one game. Especially it matters when you have a low point total on a lot of shots. If he had 25 points and shot a low % then no it wouldn't matter.

Making shots matters. Missing shots is not good. This is true. However, I thought the argument was player A, in a totally different situation, is better (or more efficient) because he produces similar numbers on 50% shooting instead of 44%. And that's not something you can say without taking into account many more things.

In one game, is someone shooting 50% better than shooting 44%, assuming everything else is equal? Yes, because they would make more shots. However, that doesn't mean they would have played a better game. You can only do what you can do under the circumstances.

-Smak

[DatAsh]

I do. I just responded in brief. All I did was explain why FG% isn't not important, if you will. I didn't even get into the reasons why it is incredibly important.

Well of course FG% is important, the problem is that you can't use it to definitively say whether or not one player is more efficient then another player. Basketball is a team game, and as such, the most efficient player is the player that maximizes team efficiency, not the player that maximizes individual efficiency.

Given the following stat-lines

A: 25/5/5 on 50%
B: 25/5/5 on 45%

You can't definitively say that player A is the more efficient player based on the given information. You can't because it's an uncertainty that - although probable - is ultimately, uncertain.

[jrong]

@ your first line. Of course FG% matters in one game. Especially it matters when you have a low point total on a lot of shots. If he had 25 points and shot a low % then no it wouldn't matter.

Making shots matters. Missing shots is not good. This is true. However, I thought the argument was player A, in a totally different situation, is better (or more efficient) because he produces similar numbers on 50% shooting instead of 44%. And that's not something you can say without taking into account many more things.

In one game, is someone shooting 50% better than shooting 44%, assuming everything else is equal? Yes, because they would make more shots. However, that doesn't mean they would have played a better game. You can only do what you can do under the circumstances.

-Smak

Copy-and-pasted from above:


And to thoroughly dismantle the original argument, high FG% penetrators/ shot creators open up the floor for their teammates also and raise the percentages of those around them just as much as low FG% ones. They just make a lot more of their own shots too!

[Pointguard]

Are you really this stupid? Dirk lost in 07 you ****ing moron. His lack of offensive efficiency was a huge reason why the Mavs lost.

Oh did somebody say anything different? I love it when you get mad. You lose your reading ability and go off into a hilarious madness. How buck stupid can you get? Did you actually think the Golden State humiliation was a win? This is why I call you BMadz. You totally lose your ability to keep up. So tell me how can you lose to an eight seed, and win.



You are so stupid that you can't see you are making my point for me. Shooting poorly over a 3 game stretch can be overcome with help and timely big shots and plays...like Dirk did in the 11 finals.
Ooooh, so now you made this point before, now. Please show me where you did. You made no point like this whatsoever. You know you didn't and when you get hyped you start imagining all types of weird stuff. But this what you do.



Dirk is better than Rose...can't believe you are still on that.
Who said any different? Here comes the imagination on crack again. We are strictly talking about shooting percentage you backward clown.



You are such a bitch made Rose fan. Go back to defending your boy about not playing some more...as you have been destroyed there as well.
:lol When BeMadz 40dumb gets hot, he can't keep focus. You're cute when you get hurt. Ahhh, maybe we can pick an easier topic so you won't lose it again. Its funny to see a 40 dumb year old like you try to be logical but immaturity overwhelm you.


I've never seen a better supporting cast trashed the way Rose fans do (insert burp here) with those Bulls teams.
BMadz, you know that's not a sensible sentence. You incoherent drunk. If you meant to say a better surrounding cast for Rose that got trashed... Look at Mavs in '07 One seed with an MVP got trashed, didn't even have a remote answer to an eight seed. The trashing was soooo hard that the MVP forgot he was the leader of his team. Now that's a whoooopin. But that's a great cast that allows an MVP become a panic reserve player. From announced MVP to crash dummy within a matter of 24 hours. I'm sure when he became a crash dummy, that's when you fully identified with him. I'm sure it was a promotion from the backwardAzzz Dummy you spent your life maturing into.


They are awesome. And fit perfectly (insert burp here) around Rose. End of story. Yeap, we had the whole year to see it. No questions there.

[TheCorporation]

Disregarding FG% as being irrelevant? :biggums:

Lemme guess, you must be a Carmelo or Kobe fan :lol

[Pointguard]

There are ways for FG% to get skewed in its perception. In the case of Kobe with Shaq, Kobe should shoot a lot of threes for the simple fact that Shaq FG% is so good that if Kobe shot nothing but threes and if he connected at 40% its a bonus. Strategically it spreads the floor and averages out better than 50% production wise anyway.

The other scenario is if you are weak offensively with uncreative players but have a great penetrater who can get to the basket, your hand is somewhat forced. It can be a positive if you have a couple of solid offensive rebounders in this case. Sometimes, depending on the makeup of the team, its a quantity vs quality type of scenario. A controlled chaos is better than a lesser skilled scoring team trying to maintain a slow pace.

[Euroleague]

tgan3

FG% is the most overrated stat on ISH..


Hi Ricky. Your English skills have improved a lot. Kudos.

:applause:

[comerb]

If Westbrook (or iverson or Kobe)takes less dumb shots and shoots a higher FG %, OKC is a better team...that's all there is to it.

Nobody is saying they are terrible players and that removing the from the team will make that team better. That's retarded, they are superstar caliber players.

They would be better players if they had better shot selections, and they are generally inferior to guys like Lebron or Jordan for that reason.