what do field goal percentages even mean?

[STATUTORY]

are they indicative of anything? all they measure is a players shot selection. Any player int he league can arbitrarily put up 50% fg just by becoming more selective with his shooting but it doesn't mean he's playing "better" basketball or optimizing his team's chance to score on any given possession

the only way fg% would be an accurate measuring stick is if all the players took the same shots

a Kobe Bryant that scores 27 points on 39% shooting is helping his team a lot more than a Kobe that does 20points on 50%

so why we squabbling over a nickel?

prime Kobe is literally as efficient as MJ ever was

[DonDadda59]

a Kobe Bryant that scores 27 points on 39% shooting is helping his team

To a 1-6 record.


prime Kobe is literally as efficient as MJ ever was

:oldlol:

[Bigsmoke]

efficiency :confusedshrug:

u scoring 30ppg on 40% shooting isn't the same as putting up 30ppg on 50%

shooting a lot while doing it with low efficiency takes away potential high percent shots away from your teammates.

[Real Men Wear Green]

You take the number of shots a player made, divide it by the number of shots he missed, and then multiply that number by 100%. And now you know.

[MMM]

Op might actually think thats how fg is calculated

[RoundMoundOfReb]

You take the number of shots a player made, divide it by the number of shots he missed, and then multiply that number by 100%. And now you know.
This is incorrect. You divide by the total number of shots.

[Real Men Wear Green]

This is incorrect. You divide by the total number of shots.
True. I guess I need this topic as well.

[kennethgriffin]

efficiency :confusedshrug:

u scoring 30ppg on 40% shooting isn't the same as putting up 30ppg on 50%

shooting a lot while doing it with low efficiency takes away potential high percent shots away from your teammates.

wrong


a player can make up for the missed shots by making more free throws/hitting more threes


a player can get 30 points on 20 shots and shoot 40%

a player can also get 30 points on 20 shots and shoot 50%


what matters is the points per shot. style of game messes with the percentages. but the efficiency remains the same



100 threes at 34% = more points than 100 twos at 50%

[I<3NBA]

FG% means a player is either efficient or not

that's all there is to it

on a team with lousy offensive rebounding, having a low FG% isn't desirable. because that means the player with low FG% is wasting the team's possession on a missed shot.

it gets worse if the brick leads to a fastbreak for the opponent.

generally, you want the best shot as much as possible so the team's possession isn't wasted.

San Antonio has lived this philosophy for years now (ever since they stopped relying on their defense to win them games). it's how they stomped the Miami Heat.

ball movement -> take the best shot -> more points -> win

[kennethgriffin]

FG% means a player is either efficient or not

that's all there is to it

on a team with lousy offensive rebounding, having a low FG% isn't desirable. because that means the player with low FG% is wasting the team's possession on a missed shot.

it gets worse if the brick leads to a fastbreak for the opponent.

generally, you want the best shot as much as possible so the team's possession isn't wasted.

San Antonio has lived this philosophy for years now (ever since they stopped relying on their defense to win them games). it's how they stomped the Miami Heat.

ball movement -> take the best shot -> more points -> win


you're f*cking retarded


so a guy shoots 50% on 10 shots and gets 10 points is more efficient than a guy who shoots 45% on 10 shots and gets 20 points by hitting 6 threes and making 4 free throws?

[chazzy]

It means a lot less than TS% at face value

[Hoopz2332]

It means a lot less than TS% at face value


FG% > TS%

Do you want Shaq or James Harden?

[Droid101]

FG% > TS%

Do you want Shaq or James Harden?
So, Tyson Chandler > LeBron.

Okay dipshit.

[Nash]

So, Tyson Chandler > LeBron.

Okay dipshit.
yes, because Chandler scores 26ppg just like Shaq, Harden and Lebron.

[mehyaM24]

So, Tyson Chandler > LeBron.

Okay dipshit.

what a stupid person you are.

[Pointguard]

It means a lot less than TS% at face value

TS% in the top ten GOATS vs FG%. Which player was in a higher tier league wide most of their career.

MJ - TS%
Wilt - FG%
Russell - FG%
Kareem - FG%
Magic - TS%
Shaq - FG%
Duncan - FG%
Bird -TS% Not sure
Kobe - TS%
Hakeem - FG%
Lebron - don't know

In measuring greats its not an advantage. Smaller players one way - taller players the other.

[ArbitraryWater]

So, Tyson Chandler > LeBron.

Okay dipshit.

Volume you goddamn retard :oldlol: :facepalm

Laker fans

[Hoopz2332]

So, Tyson Chandler > LeBron.

Okay dipshit.


Of course you can't compare those two. Harden (on the Rockets) and Shaq have a more similar FGA range whereas tyson hardley shoots


Chandler

http://i.imgur.com/Xfa4OqB.png



Shaq

http://i.imgur.com/8G0wUp0.png



Harden


http://i.imgur.com/ZMKw1yf.png

and yes...LBJ is better than Chandler

[chazzy]

It factors in the worse FT shooting and lack of 3pt shooting of bigs. Why would I look at point totals and not factor in the amount of possessions (not shots) it took to get them?

[Hoopz2332]

Volume you goddamn retard :oldlol: :facepalm

Laker fans


Kobe stans are funny people:oldlol:

[Mr. I'm So Rad]

It means a lot less than TS% at face value

Both are worthless without context and doesn't make a huge difference when talking about the greatest scorers ever. Like defenders or coaches gave a shit about AI shooting <40% when they saw him on the court. Lol

[Mr. I'm So Rad]

And TS% and EF% and all that stuff...I just don't like how it gives and arbitrary value to things. Like, when was it agreed upon that a free throw is worth 0.3 point or whatever? It's the same issue with PER although that is much more egregious when it comes to arbitrarily deciding what value which stats have.

Like, if FG% didn't exist would people's ideas of the top 10 scorers of all time, or even in the last 10 years or the league right now just suddenly change? It wouldn't. FG% is more indicative of the way a coach runs his offense and the team a guy is on rather than how good a scorer the guy himself is. Kobe's shooting <40% yet he'll still get doubled immediately in the post and coaches will still put their best defenders on him. It obviously doesn't matter to them, so why I should I care?

[Hoopz2332]

Both are worthless without context and doesn't make a huge difference when talking about the greatest scorers ever. Like defenders or coaches gave a shit about AI shooting <40% when they saw him on the court. Lol


high volume shooting with low eff = throws you teams off and def balance off and put the other team in transition easier. In Kobe's case, he had a huge frontline/highly eff big men to counter his chuckingby swallowing up all of his misses for easy putbacks.

The 2 heat title and 4 finals teams had bad rebounding so they had to counter this with being highly eff in scoring the ball to help keep the other teams from pounding them on the glass and easy fastbreaks.

[Mr. I'm So Rad]

high volume shooting with low eff = throws you teams off and def balance off and put the other team in transition easier. In Kobe's case, he had a huge frontline/highly eff big men to counter his chuckingby swallowing up all of his misses for easy putbacks.

Missing shots makes your team's defense worse? Every missed shot results in a potential fast break for the other team? Do you guys watch basketball?


The 2 heat title and 4 finals teams had bad rebounding so they had to counter this with being highly eff in scoring the ball to help keep the other teams from pounding them on the glass and easy fastbreaks.

No, Miami countered their rebounding woes by playing at a slow pace and not crashing the offensive glass so they could get back on defense like the Big 3 Celtics used to do. When you play a 5 out offense w/ small ball it makes it easier to get back on defense. And they could crash the glass when they needed to

[Mass Debator]

Ya worry too much about stats. Watch the games. Kobe or AI back then shooting 40% didn't jeopardize their teams from winning. If the game is close, it's about who performs more greatly in the closing minutes. You can argue if this player didn't shoot as bad, they wouldn't be in that position in the first place. But truth is, he did shoot poorly, you never know how the game would unfold if he didn't shoot poorly, they still had a chance to win, so now go win it. Kobe and AI were the real deal. Games were 99% of the time close in the playoffs. These players knew how to rise to the occasion. Give them the ball and they'll find a way.

Lebron or Harden or whoever can have their 60% TS but they don't know how to close the fking deal in big moments. Bullshit stats may say otherwise like them elimination games or whatever Lebron people bank on, but the eye test don't lie when I see them being indecisive and playing with jitters.

[I<3NBA]

you're f*cking retarded


so a guy shoots 50% on 10 shots and gets 10 points is more efficient than a guy who shoots 45% on 10 shots and gets 20 points by hitting 6 threes and making 4 free throws?
:facepalm

how can he have 6 threes on 10 shots? :lol 6 threes on 10 shots would be 60% FG% at which point we can pretty much stop there

but then you also had to add free throws (which isn't counted in FG%)
you weren't contented in your idiocy, you gave one player points for free throws and the other no free throws at all

[RoundMoundOfReb]

:facepalm

how can he have 6 threes on 10 shots? :lol 6 threes on 10 shots would be 60% FG% at which point we can pretty much stop there

but then you also had to add free throws (which isn't counted in FG%)
you weren't contented in your idiocy, you gave one player points for free throws and the other no free throws at all
:roll: :roll:

But yes TS%>>>FG%

BTW Kenneth, dividing total points by number of shots is NOT an effective way of measuring efficiency.

[GrapeApe]

What's so hard to understand about FG%? It's a simple ratio of made shots compared to total shots taken. Very straight forward. Like any other stat, its significance is largely based on context.

[IncarceratedBob]

So, Tyson Chandler > LeBron.

Okay dipshit.
only in the finals

[Jacks3]

FG% is utterly worthless. A player could shoot 50% and still be terribly inefficient simply because he's not getting to the line or hitting threes. TS% and ORTG are obviously much, much better measurements to measure scoring efficiency but the morons here refuse to use them simply because they destroy the myth that Kobe is "inefficient" and reveal that he actually had consistently excellent efficient numbers during his 10-year prime, and a good 56% TS/112 ORTG for his career pre-Achilles injury. They know TS%/ORTG will destroy certain myths they've keep bleating and that's why they cling to it. It's hilarious.

Using FG% to measure scoring efficiency or overall efficiency is just retarded. It would be like using batting average to judge the value of a hitter.

[GrapeApe]

FG% is utterly worthless. A player could shoot 50% and still be terribly inefficient simply because he's not getting to the line or hitting threes. TS% and ORTG are obviously much, much better measurements to measure scoring efficiency but the morons here refuse to use them simply because they destroy the myth that Kobe is "inefficient" and reveal that he actually had consistently excellent efficient numbers during his 10-year prime, and a good 56% TS/112 ORTG for his career pre-Achilles injury. They know TS%/ORTG will destroy certain myths they've keep bleating and that's why they cling to it. It's hilarious.

Using FG% to measure scoring efficiency or overall efficiency is just retarded. It would be like using batting average to judge the value of a hitter.

FG% is most certainly not utterly worthless. It's a good, basic stat and a simple ratio. Nothing more, nothing less. Using ANY stat by itself to draw a conclusion is retarded. They all require context.

[Jacks3]

You're right. It's not totally worthless. It's good if you want to see what a players shoots from a certain area of the floor. Like if you wanted to compare Kobe and Wade's percentages from 10-16 feet. That's fine.

The problem is that people here still use it as a measure of overall scoring efficiency, and it is absolutely useless in that regard.

[fpliii]

You're right. It's not totally worthless. It's good if you want to see what a players shoots from a certain area of the floor. Like if you wanted to compare Kobe and Wade's percentages from 10-16 feet. That's fine.

The problem is that people here still use it as a measure of overall scoring efficiency, and it is absolutely useless in that regard.
Agreed. I like using it to compare how players shoot from different zones.

Otherwise, give me TS% (though it still doesn't fully take a player's role in the offense into account, some guys are charged with taking more difficult shots to open up attempts for teammates who can't create, or act as decoys to warp defenses).

[PsychoBe]

fg % is one realm of basketball, the percentage of makes you have from the field...that's it. it doesn't take into account if you were hacked eleven times and never missed a free throw, if you missed two shots, grabbed both offensive rebounds, and then finally scored, etc, etc.

it's just one piece of the puzzle.

[oarabbus]

FG% is utterly worthless. A player could shoot 50% and still be terribly inefficient simply because he's not getting to the line or hitting threes. TS% and ORTG are obviously much, much better measurements to measure scoring efficiency but the morons here refuse to use them simply because they destroy the myth that Kobe is "inefficient" and reveal that he actually had consistently excellent efficient numbers during his 10-year prime, and a good 56% TS/112 ORTG for his career pre-Achilles injury. They know TS%/ORTG will destroy certain myths they've keep bleating and that's why they cling to it. It's hilarious.

Using FG% to measure scoring efficiency or overall efficiency is just retarded. It would be like using batting average to judge the value of a hitter.


99 out of 100 times, the .333 batter is better than the .250

Similarly 99 out of 100 times, ON SIMILAR SHOT VOLUME, the 50% FG guy is a better/more efficient scorer than the 40%FG guy :

[kshutts1]

And TS% and EF% and all that stuff...I just don't like how it gives and arbitrary value to things. Like, when was it agreed upon that a free throw is worth 0.3 point or whatever? It's the same issue with PER although that is much more egregious when it comes to arbitrarily deciding what value which stats have.

Like, if FG% didn't exist would people's ideas of the top 10 scorers of all time, or even in the last 10 years or the league right now just suddenly change? It wouldn't. FG% is more indicative of the way a coach runs his offense and the team a guy is on rather than how good a scorer the guy himself is. Kobe's shooting <40% yet he'll still get doubled immediately in the post and coaches will still put their best defenders on him. It obviously doesn't matter to them, so why I should I care?
:biggums:

Did I miss something? I'm 99.99% sure that TS And EF don't factor in "arbitrary" numbers. At all. That's PER, Win Shares, and their ilk.

[KungFuJoe]

I don't need to know what FG percentage means to know that Kobe is an inefficient chucker who freezes out his entire team at times.

And please don't say he does it because his team sucks. Yeah, his team does suck but he was doing it even when he capable scorers around him.

[kshutts1]

I don't need to know what FG percentage means to know that Kobe is an inefficient chucker who freezes out his entire team at times.

And please don't say he does it because his team sucks. Yeah, his team does suck but he was doing it even when he capable scorers around him.
I remember watching Jordan do the same thing... just had a higher FG%.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

I remember watching Jordan do the same thing... just had a higher FG%.

I don't. And I watched mostly his entire career.

[JT123]

99 out of 100 times, the .333 batter is better than the .250

Similarly 99 out of 100 times, ON SIMILAR SHOT VOLUME, the 50% FG guy is a better/more efficient scorer than the 40%FG guy :
/thread

[Round Mound]

are they indicative of anything? all they measure is a players shot selection. Any player int he league can arbitrarily put up 50% fg just by becoming more selective with his shooting but it doesn't mean he's playing "better" basketball or optimizing his team's chance to score on any given possession

the only way fg% would be an accurate measuring stick is if all the players took the same shots

a Kobe Bryant that scores 27 points on 39% shooting is helping his team a lot more than a Kobe that does 20points on 50%

so why we squabbling over a nickel?

prime Kobe is literally as efficient as MJ ever was

:roll: :no:

[blablabla]

I don't need to know what FG percentage means to know that Kobe is an inefficient chucker who freezes out his entire team at times.


I hope you realize that Byron Scott has a gameplan drawn up and it's not just Kobe taking the ball and doing whatever the F he wants

[JT123]

I hope you realize that Byron Scott has a gameplan drawn up and it's not just Kobe taking the ball and doing whatever the F he wants
So Byron's game plan is for Kobe (a 39% shooter) to take 28 shots a night? :biggums:
If that's the case Bryon needs to be fired ASAP. :oldlol:

[STATUTORY]

:roll: :no:

check TS brah

[oarabbus]

I hope you realize that Byron Scott has a gameplan drawn up and it's not just Kobe taking the ball and doing whatever the F he wants

Really not sure if that makes it better or worse:lol

[3ball]

kobe could be like jordan for a few nights here and there.

but he wasn't jordan.

[STATUTORY]

kobe could be like jordan for a few nights here and there.

but he wasn't jordan.
different era breh

[SugarHill]

http://i.imgur.com/8zWBa8n.jpg

[blablabla]

Really not sure if that makes it better or worse:lol
I wasn't trying to justify Kobes FG%, i just think that on ISH the aspect of coaching when discussing Players Performances is heavily underrated

[Ne 1]

[QUOTE=DonDadda59:[/QUOTE]
Technically what you said is correct, but you have to put things into perspective/proper context. It should definitely be noted that in the 1980s and 1990s everyone shot a higher FG%


Since Chris Mullin in the early 90s, LeBron was the first perimeter player to average 25+ ppg on 50+%

Reggie Miller who was a jump shoter 98% of the time had 4 seasons shooting 50 FG%.

Drazen Petrovic had 2 seasons.

Jeff Hornacek had 5 seasons.

Even Ricky Pierce had 6 seasons shooting over 50 FG% from the field in the 80's/90s.

Those type of seasons in the mid 80s to early 90s happened all the time. List of other guys who accomplished that feat: Kiki Vandeweghe, Dantley, Mark Aguirre, Dale Ellis, Clyde Drexler, Chris Mullin, Alex English, Bernard King, Jordan, Bird, Gervin, Worthy, Stockton, Johnson, Dr. J, Thompson, Kelly Tripucka and a couple of others came close and I'm sure I am forgetting some names too (stopped happening around mid-late 90s when help defense improved, overall commitment to defense by teams was greater and also perimeter talent was crap) Now if you compare that to the last 15 years, it has been a rarity for a high scoring perimeter player to shoot 50+%. This isn't meant to belittle Jordan or any of the other players I named at all, but it was a different era and the fact of that matter is that the 80s/early 90s was a more wide open game with a lot less defense.

Purvis Short was putting up 26 ppg on near 50%, and I'm to think Kobe is going to have problems shooting a higher percentage than his usual 45-47% average in that era? Especially with him getting a million semi-transition looks all game long, with horrible help defense (which didn't improve until the Pistons showed how), amongst several other factors.

[Cocaine80s]

http://i.imgur.com/8zWBa8n.jpg
:roll: :roll: