nate is much better than rondo

[Rondo_is_better]

This is uhhh....

this is....

uhhhhhhhh.....

[guava_wrench]

Best part of this thread: Nate is not only better than Rondo, but "much" better.

[guava_wrench]

Great stats Roy. I didn't know theirs were so poor inside. I would imagine though that their ability to draw contact and go to the line makes a bit of a difference to me though. It also would be nice to know what their "layup" percentage is vs. "inside shots". A tear drop from 6-7 feet might be considered inside and then those numbers wouldn't look too bad. Rajon is definitely a crafty scorer or he wouldn't be putting up the numbers that he does, however a very efficient shooter seems to be a big stretch! That seems to indicate that you felt he was efficient from the outside which obviously isn't the case.

Nice work with the examples though as it made me feel a bit better about his layups!

It's probably semantics regarding the word "efficient".  One stat that seems to encompass both of our arguments is "points per shot".  This takes into account all points scored (including FT points), and how many field goal attempts (but not FTAs) you needed to get them.  There, Rondo is very good -- 13th in the NBA among PGs, at 1.23 points per shot -- but he's not other-worldy.

(Another interesting stat I just saw:  Rondo ranks 2nd in the NBA on FG% on two-point shots, behind only Steve Nash.)

I agree with you that Rondo's FT shooting / confidence is an issue.  Often, he doesn't attack the opposing defense because of apparent concerns about being sent to the line. 

True shooting takes into account FTAs as well as three point shooting.

He falls to 25th (tied with Jameer Nelson) by that measure.

One problem with stats that count free throws is that it is hard to capture whether it cost a possession. For example, does a player who misses the FT in an and-1 get a lower score than a player who also hits the shot but doesn't get fouled? The player should never be penalized for drawing a foul when scoring, even if they miss the FT.

On the other hand, the player who misses FTs that are not in an and-1 situation should be penalized since the used up a possession.

Essentially,

hitting a 2pt FG = 2 pts in a possession
hitting a 2pt FG & missing an and-1 = 2 pts in a possession
hitting a 2pt FG & hitting an and-1 = 3 pts in a possession
going 2-2 from FT = 2 pts in a possession
going 1-2 from FT = 1 pt in a possession
going 0-2 from FT = 0 pts in a possession

You can do the math for 3pt situations. This is situational, so it is hard to get from straight numbers. The main point is that 2 and-1 situations should not be though of as a possession, unless you want to count those 2 possessions as 3 possessions. The stat should measure scoring efficiency, not shooting ability.

You are also forgeting technical free throws and clear path fouls.

You'll find that FTA's are weighted with I believe with .44 of a possession to account for that. Its not perfect as some players are better at drawing "and 1's" than others but I believe that .44 was selected based on league average.

I don't think the problem you highlight is statistically significant, though it might be. I'd be interested to see any studies that have been run on it.

I wasn't sure how to count technical free throws. Someone like Ray deserves credit for the difference between his shooting and the average FT% of shooters of technical free throws, but I'm not sure I would work that into the efficiency due to complexity. Perhaps it is better to not try to include everything?

I think the clear path fouls need to be accounted for since it is only certain types of players who will get them. Perk or Shaq, for example, will not get clear path fouls. When Rondo misses both shots on a clear path foul that another player would not have been fast enough to generate (by getting ahead of the defender or getting a steal), I wouldn't count that against him using the .44.

[xmuscularghandix]

Best part of this thread: Nate is not only better than Rondo, but "much" better.

LOL.

The even better part is that people keep discussing this... 

[ToppersBsktball10]

rondo shooting percentaje is under 40%
he misses free throws
if doc can trust nate as he trusts rondo- nate will be even better
nate is an excellent shooter from 2 o 3 , he does penetrations, and is a more energetic player
we lost the finals because L.A leave rondo alone so he has to shoot from the perimeter or behind it , that s was the main reason we lost the finals

Ahhh, where to start. First off, you're wrong. Rondo is a POINT GUARD, he gets assists, gets others involved, gets rebounds, controls the fast break, can score, and create turn overs on the defensive end as well as put pressure on the opposing point guard. Nate is a scorer off the bench, who can't get to the rim nearly as easy as Rondo, but can put up points in bunches. He is a defensive liability, but he brings great energy. That's about it. Rondo also has a .508 shooting percentage this year. That's pretty solid.

[mgent]

The results of getting drunk before posting. 

Hey man, it's not that hard.

[Fafnir]

I wasn't sure how to count technical free throws. Someone like Ray deserves credit for the difference between his shooting and the average FT% of shooters of technical free throws, but I'm not sure I would work that into the efficiency due to complexity. Perhaps it is better to not try to include everything?

I think the clear path fouls need to be accounted for since it is only certain types of players who will get them. Perk or Shaq, for example, will not get clear path fouls. When Rondo misses both shots on a clear path foul that another player would not have been fast enough to generate (by getting ahead of the defender or getting a steal), I wouldn't count that against him using the .44.

Ray does get credit, when he makes technical free throws that improves his TS%. If he misses them he's still costs the Celtics a chance to score a point isn't he? Why would you need to differentiate from a normal free throw?

I don't think there are enough clear path fouls. Rondo took 282 free throws, how many would be from clear path fouls? And again regardless of the source of the free throws missing them still costs the team points.

[ThaPreacher]

rondo shooting percentaje is under 40%
he misses free throws
if doc can trust nate as he trusts rondo- nate will be even better
nate is an excellent shooter from 2 o 3 , he does penetrations, and is a more energetic player
we lost the finals because L.A leave rondo alone so he has to shoot from the perimeter or behind it , that s was the main reason we lost the finals

There should be  taketh tommy point away button

Hilarious quote, TP, yes there should be a taketh away TP button. heh
But can you imagine the vindictive battles heh.


I don't think you could argue that Nate is better than Rondo.  Rondo is a special player
whose athleticism is unseen at the PG position.
However, I don't think you should dismiss the main points:
 Free Throws, shooting percentage and ability to knock down jumpers.
These all make Rondo questionable in a 7 game championship series.
But Hondo couldn't shoot for his early years either.

[guava_wrench]

I wasn't sure how to count technical free throws. Someone like Ray deserves credit for the difference between his shooting and the average FT% of shooters of technical free throws, but I'm not sure I would work that into the efficiency due to complexity. Perhaps it is better to not try to include everything?

I think the clear path fouls need to be accounted for since it is only certain types of players who will get them. Perk or Shaq, for example, will not get clear path fouls. When Rondo misses both shots on a clear path foul that another player would not have been fast enough to generate (by getting ahead of the defender or getting a steal), I wouldn't count that against him using the .44.

Ray does get credit, when he makes technical free throws that improves his TS%. If he misses them he's still costs the Celtics a chance to score a point isn't he? Why would you need to differentiate from a normal free throw?

I don't think there are enough clear path fouls. Rondo took 282 free throws, how many would be from clear path fouls? And again regardless of the source of the free throws missing them still costs the team points.

If the stat is being used used to measure scoring efficiency, costing the team points isn't enough to make it into my denominator.

Like I have already mentioned, if Rondo scores and gets an and-1 which he misses, it did not cost the team points. That possession ended with 2 points, which is well above the league average for points per possession. We could say that every time a player scores 2 points he costs a team points because he didn't shoot a three, but that seems quite bizarre.

If we are going to capture tech FTs, it is not clear to me that the previously mentioned multiplier of .44 still makes sense since it isn't clear how to relate FTAs to possessions and since not all players need to be selected to shoot techs since there are multiple good FT shooters on a typical team. I mention this because Paul Pierce is good enough from the line that he was worthy of getting more free points from techs. The main reason he didn't is because he plays with Ray Allen. Yet if Pierce took the shots, he would have benefited statistically.

I'll put this in terms that relate back to your comment: shooting 65% on Tech FTs costs the team more than shooting 65% on FTs after a missed shot since the league average for points per possession is considerably lower than the league average for points per 2 technical FTs. Missing 2 FTs after a shooting foul cost the team a little over one point. Missing 2 FTs that were both a result of a tech probably costs the team over 1.5 points.

[Fafnir]

I wasn't sure how to count technical free throws. Someone like Ray deserves credit for the difference between his shooting and the average FT% of shooters of technical free throws, but I'm not sure I would work that into the efficiency due to complexity. Perhaps it is better to not try to include everything?

I think the clear path fouls need to be accounted for since it is only certain types of players who will get them. Perk or Shaq, for example, will not get clear path fouls. When Rondo misses both shots on a clear path foul that another player would not have been fast enough to generate (by getting ahead of the defender or getting a steal), I wouldn't count that against him using the .44.

Ray does get credit, when he makes technical free throws that improves his TS%. If he misses them he's still costs the Celtics a chance to score a point isn't he? Why would you need to differentiate from a normal free throw?

I don't think there are enough clear path fouls. Rondo took 282 free throws, how many would be from clear path fouls? And again regardless of the source of the free throws missing them still costs the team points.

If the stat is being used used to measure scoring efficiency, costing the team points isn't enough to make it into my denominator.

Like I have already mentioned, if Rondo scores and gets an and-1 which he misses, it did not cost the team points. That possession ended with 2 points, which is well above the league average for points per possession. We could say that every time a player scores 2 points he costs a team points because he didn't shoot a three, but that seems quite bizarre.

If we are going to capture tech FTs, it is not clear to me that the previously mentioned multiplier of .44 still makes sense since it isn't clear how to relate FTAs to possessions and since not all players need to be selected to shoot techs since there are multiple good FT shooters on a typical team. I mention this because Paul Pierce is good enough from the line that he was worthy of getting more free points from techs. The main reason he didn't is because he plays with Ray Allen. Yet if Pierce took the shots, he would have benefited statistically.

I'll put this in terms that relate back to your comment: shooting 65% on Tech FTs costs the team more than shooting 65% on FTs after a missed shot since the league average for points per possession is considerably lower than the league average for points per 2 technical FTs. Missing 2 FTs after a shooting foul cost the team a little over one point. Missing 2 FTs that were both a result of a tech probably costs the team over 1.5 points.

I'd have to construct a study on this issue before I'd declare it a problem or not.

I think a factor of .44 accounts for the average number of possessions a person who takes free throws. The average number of technical free throws, and-1s, and clear path fouls for any individual player shouldn't skew the results that much.

I think TS% is still a better measure than points per shot, eFG%, and FG% if you're looking at one measure.

If you want to remove this factor than you can multiply eFG% out to get points per shot without free throws. You can then look at Free throw rate and other measures.

But for one statistic the issues you raise aren't large enough for me to even blink when using true shooting. Especially when the .44 factor already addresses the fact that a free throw is less than half a possession on average.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/sortableStatsTeam?league=NBA&stat=technicalFoulsPlayer&table=fouls&dir=descending

Look at how few technical fouls there are, for the Celtics a team who fouled a lot and led the league in technicals. (both team and player techs) There are 100 technical fouls and the Celtics opponents shot 2152 free throws. Technicals are 4.6% of free throws attempted.

[BballTim]

I'll put this in terms that relate back to your comment: shooting 65% on Tech FTs costs the team more than shooting 65% on FTs after a missed shot since the league average for points per possession is considerably lower than the league average for points per 2 technical FTs. Missing 2 FTs after a shooting foul cost the team a little over one point. Missing 2 FTs that were both a result of a tech probably costs the team over 1.5 points.

  Realistically, the number of points cost for the two cases of missing 2 fts after getting fouled on a shot and missing 2 fts on a tech are closer than that. Teams lose almost a quarter of their possessions to turnovers, and a possession that has a shot in it is probably much less likely to end in a turnover. Also, the ORR on fts is less than on a regular missed shot. It won't get you from 1 point to 1.5 points, but probably close to halfway there.