My proposed stat shows shooting efficiency. It overrules the PPG stat which can be padded by scoring lots of points but a lot of missed FG could be factored in. For example Iverson gets a lot a PPG but his FG % is low, leading to lots of defensive rebounds and points for the other team.Go try it yourself and see who's shooting is really most effective. I'm betting sixth men will have the best point-per-shot averages.
2006-08-24 15:27:43 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports ➔ Basketball
From my trial observations, Steve Nash was the best at 1.115 PPS (1489 pts in 1,335 total shots). A feast or famine shooter like Iverson had a low .896 (2375 pts in 2650 shots). Anything over .900 PPS should be considered excellent.
2006-08-24 18:11:49 · update #1
I believe there is a problem with this "shooting efficiency" stat. Adding together FT attempts and FG attempts doesn't work. One FT gives only 1 point and is not the same as 1 FG attempt, which gives 2 points.
For example, If a player attempts 30 FTs and makes 30 FTs the "shooting efficiency" would be ( 30/30 ) or 1. If another player attempts 30 FGs and makes them all they would have 60 pts. There "shooting efficiency" in this case would be ( 60/30 ) or 2. This seems biased towards players who take more FTs. Making more 3pters will raise the "shooting efficiency".
Player example:
Quentin Richardson 04-05 Phx Season
1177.1*( 1042.8 + 181.7 ) = .961
Pretty good "shooting efficiency" for a player who averged only a 39% FG and 74% FT.
Wade has a better FG% and FT% but has a lower "shooting efficiency" (.92 with 49.5% FG and 78.3% FT).
The formula is definitely telling us something but it's not that players with low FG% have a lower "shooting efficiency".
2006-08-24 19:50:10 · answer #1 · answered by StickMaN-X 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree. Quite frankly, I'm a bit tired of formulae being devised to show a players "true" value. Anyone with a bit of basketball knowlege knows how to read a stat sheet. PPG must always be observed in conjuction with FG% and FGA and minutes played.It's not hard to do. Even points per 48 minutes isn't needed when you just take to account these 4 items. These systems are designed to rate one player over another definitively, but they only have use in fantasy sports. In the actual game all sorts of factors change the way things turn out. You cannot tell if LeBron is scientifically a better player than Kobe unless you play a season, then replicate that season but swap the two players onto the other team. The best way to tell who's better is to watch the games and go with your instinct. Who seems to be better? Who's making shots? Who's playing good D? Who's turning the ball over? If you really need stats, stick to the basics. They're a lot safer, and simpler. The per game stats and the totals as well as the %s are all you need.
2006-08-27 21:01:11 · answer #2 · answered by mooseymoose 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's pretty cool. It really shows how well a player produces effeciently. One thing that I did was I compared LeBron and Kobe. Well for all you people out there that say Kobe sucks and LeBron's the best well you're wrong. Kobe has a higher "point-per-shot average" than LeBron. I'm not saying LeBron sucks, but Kobe is good, too. That shows that even if he was a ball hog (like many of you think) he does good with the ball. He produces baskets and helps his team. You should try this equation and see if your favorite player is efficient.
2006-08-24 22:51:23 · answer #3 · answered by DUH 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It may need a bit of a tweak, you see, when someone shoot ft, it takes two shots to get two points. but your equation does not reflect that. Furthermore, shooting freethrows should be easier than scoring a field goal. That does not really reflected in the formula.
Maybe Total points/(ft*0.5+fg) should reflect a realistic value.
2006-08-29 01:23:07 · answer #4 · answered by Onny 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You should send it to Dwayne Wade and tell him to "chew on this"
Even if he does have ridiculously good field goal percentage. Someone needs to make a "stupidity formula" that looks at how many defenders they went through opposed to how many people they could pass to for the open shot
2006-08-25 00:40:22 · answer #5 · answered by higgins131 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it is great. Wonder what Iversons percentage is in your system.
2006-08-24 23:23:51 · answer #6 · answered by Awesome Bill 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Insteresting, does that means T-MAC suck
2006-08-28 23:01:09 · answer #7 · answered by Chi 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
cool... nice job... i think you should recommend it to FIBA... hehehehe
2006-09-01 21:40:40 · answer #8 · answered by the chosen one 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋