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.

Last edited by Brick Rick : 12-08-2012 at 07:00 PM.

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.

Last edited by Chief Keef : 12-08-2012 at 07:17 PM.

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.

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.

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

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.

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%.

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.

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.

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.

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.