Is Shooting % underated?

[cardsunsfan]

I was just looking at stats and I would think stars who can score consistantly and can be close to 50% or greater fg % should be looked at as quite a bit better than the starts who shoot in the low 40% which is often times a little lower than your hoping your team to score at. I know it can be mentioned they they take more difficult shots often times but it should be looked at...

For instance if things stay close to the same I would think Shaq, Amare and Wade would be much more valuable than Kobe, McGrady and James..... I never understood why Laker fans seem to choose Kobe over Shaq except for Kobe might be more exciting to watch play...

 

[Tank]

I never understood why Laker fans seem to choose Kobe over Shaq except for Kobe might be more exciting to watch play...

Kobe will be around longer also

 

[LakeShowMan]

Uhh, because Kobe has about 7-10 more years and Shaq has 2-3 at most.

Also, Kobe has been very efficient this year. His shooting % isn't great, but he is getting to the line and converting. Kobe probably makes up the difference between his and Shaqs shooting %, with his proficiency from the line (He is averaging 1.68 pps [points per shot] right now which is pretty good, Shaq's right now is at about 1.35). Also, his shooting % is usually negatively effected because anytime the shot clock is running down the Lakers give him the ball and he has to force something up. I would like him to get his % up in the 45-47% range, and I think he will (his carrer % is .454).

In a perfect world Kobe and Shaq would have gotten along and played together for the rest of their carreers. That was obviously not going to happen. The Lakers made the correct decision.

 

[elindholm]

FG% is one of the hardest statistics to interpret.

Someone who shoots only when he's wide open (Kerr) or right at the basket (O'Neal) will have an artificially high percentage. Someone who is often asked to "bail out" his team when the shot clock is low (Iverson, Pierce) will tend to have a low percentage. A player who gets out on the break and scores a lot of layups (Marion) may look like a better shooter than he really is, whereas one who has to grind everything out in the halfcourt set (Hamilton) will see his numbers suffer.

I think good shooting and shot selection are both very important, but unfortunately, shooting percentage statistics really aren't a very good indicator.

I like to look at 3FG% and FT%. Most players shoot three-pointers only when they're open, so the "degree of difficulty" is pretty much the same for all players. And of course that is particularly true for three-pointers. It's possible for someone to be a good three-point shooter and a good free-throw shooter and still a poor overall shooter, but that's pretty rare. And there are good shooters whose range doesn't extend to the three-point line, so it's hardly a foolproof system, but at least it's a more objective indicator.

 

[George O'Brien]

Another shooting percentage issue has to do with put backs on the boards. Some guys get a lot of easy put backs that boost their percentage while other guys fight for more offensive rebounds in traffic and end up trying to put the ball up in tall timber.

Clock running down shots are a recurring problem. It would be interesting to know what percentage of shots taken in the last two seconds of a cycle actually go in. My guess is the percentage is fairly low.

It would be intersting to know, because there is a terrible aversion to "letting the clock run out". However, taking a wild shot that produces a fast break is not necessarily a good strategy.

 

[LakeShowMan]

Another shooting percentage issue has to do with put backs on the boards. Some guys get a lot of easy put backs that boost their percentage while other guys fight for more offensive rebounds in traffic and end up trying to put the ball up in tall timber.

Clock running down shots are a recurring problem. It would be interesting to know what percentage of shots taken in the last two seconds of a cycle actually go in. My guess is the percentage is fairly low.

It would be intersting to know, because there is a terrible aversion to "letting the clock run out". However, taking a wild shot that produces a fast break is not necessarily a good strategy.

Those are all really good points.

Shooting % is important but not a be all. I am probably in the minority, but I think points per shot is a good indicator of a scorers efficiency. Yes, it favors people who get to the line (and make their fts), but that is very underappreciated avenue of scoring.

 

[Gaddabout]

I think field goal percentage is a more important team statistic than an individual statistic. I think offensive and defensive FG percentage is a good head-to-head measuring stick.

Check out this column to see what I mean ...

http://www.nba.com/features/sunsnumbers_041110.html

 

[PhxGametime]

I haven't watched every Magic/Lakers/Heat game but some players just get calls more-so than other players

I do have a feeling, that kind of talk will be mentioned while Amare Stoudemire starts dominating but oh well, I don't go to ESPN boards anymore

How has Chris Mihm been doing lately? I have liked his game and I'd think he would've been a fit for Suns... after a few games, I only watch Suns games - he had that strong first game. Other than Vlade Divac (possibly Kobe), if Lakers weren't Lakers - the team itself isn't too bad but with my brother jumping from team to team (Lakers) and most of the dislike of Division teams... I just won't root for them.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I never understood why Laker fans seem to choose Kobe over Shaq except for Kobe might be more exciting to watch play...

I can give you two reasons.
1. Kobe makes about 85% of his free throws as compared to 50%.
2. Kobe is 27 years old, Shaq is 33. In five years, Kobe will still be in his prime, Shaq will be retired.

 

[baltimorer]

Shooting percentage absolutely is important. It's about simple efficiency. If you're shooting the ball, you shoot to score; otherwise, pass the ball and make your teamate better.

And I don't really buy that "but he shoots when the shot-clock is way down" theory, because that player is going to be taking the toughest shots anyway because they're the best players. If you compare the shooting percentage of a Steve Kerr and a Kobe Bryant, yeah, it's going to be skewed a little bit, but who cares? Nobody ever compares Kobe and Kerr. What does matter is when you compare Michael Jordan to Kobe Bryant, there is a major difference. While historically they have taken similar shots with similar difficulty, MJ in his prime shot over 50% from the field year in and year out. Kobe shot 41% last year, and his fg% has been going down each year since his career-best 46.9% in 2001-2002. Disregarding the Assist, Rebound, Steals, and Blocks categories (all in MJ's favor), his shooting percentage clearly seperates the two players.

Of course, Michael, MJ, Jordan, Mike, whatever you want to call him, is arguably the G.O.A.T. (Greatest of all time), so it's hard to use him in a comparison. But you certainly can use shooting percentage when you compare similar players. For instance, Kobe Bryant and Tracy McGrady are both right around 44.5% for their career - not a bad percentage for a guard, also not great. I'd much rather have had a young Penny Hardaway in his hay, because he shot 52% from the field. When he was shooting the ball, it was probably going to go in, and when he wasn't shooting the ball, he was probably making somebody better. With TMAC and Kobe, the same cannot be said.

Obviously, things are more complicated than simple shooting percentage. However, it's very important, and anybody who disagrees doesn't really know basketball. It's a simple matter of efficiency.