The Offense and Shot Distribution

[Carhole]

I never get the argument that foul shots some how negates a percent of a players scoring efficiency - or that you "have to take the foul shots into account as ft attempts".

It is actually very similar to why Base on Balls are not counted as at bats because it should not reduce a players batting average yet it increases their efficiency as a hitter (measured by on base percentage)

  Because foul shots use up an offensive possession. If PP takes 20 shots in a game and makes 10 baskets that's 20 points on 20 shots. If he takes 20 shots in the next game and makes 2 out of 10 shots, gets fouled on 10 shots and makes 8 of the 20 foul shots that's 12 points that resulted from the 20 shots. You'd be claiming that the 12 points on 20 shots is more efficient than the 20 points on 20 shots because the box score would show 12 points on 10 shots. This is entirelyt different from a base on balls because the walk doesn't "use up" an at bat. If there was one out before the batter walked there's still one out after he walks.

It isnt different at all. If you want to  use a selective portion of a post (the part that was a simile)and go to ridiculous extreme examples you can attempt to argue basically anything.

FTA comes with other benifits that a simple fga do not.

So the nba stat gods have decided not to include it in the statistics but you have.

20 pts on 20 shots is a horrible game, that is an antoine walker special, and is less efficient then 12 points on 10 shots.

And it does use a "possession" but it can save time leading to a greater number of possessions in the game overall that is the point.

[LB3533]

If you make 50% of your shots, that's pretty efficient.

It don't matter if you go to the line or not.

[Fafnir]

I never get the argument that foul shots some how negates a percent of a players scoring efficiency - or that you "have to take the foul shots into account as ft attempts".

It is actually very similar to why Base on Balls are not counted as at bats because it should not reduce a players batting average yet it increases their efficiency as a hitter (measured by on base percentage)

  Because foul shots use up an offensive possession. If PP takes 20 shots in a game and makes 10 baskets that's 20 points on 20 shots. If he takes 20 shots in the next game and makes 2 out of 10 shots, gets fouled on 10 shots and makes 8 of the 20 foul shots that's 12 points that resulted from the 20 shots. You'd be claiming that the 12 points on 20 shots is more efficient than the 20 points on 20 shots because the box score would show 12 points on 10 shots. This is entirelyt different from a base on balls because the walk doesn't "use up" an at bat. If there was one out before the batter walked there's still one out after he walks.

A walk does use up an at bat, it just doesn't give up an out.

But for the purposes of basketball the .4 or .44 times FTA is a very good estimate for how many possesions FTAs use up. TS% is what you want to use.

[Fafnir]

I never get the argument that foul shots some how negates a percent of a players scoring efficiency - or that you "have to take the foul shots into account as ft attempts".

It is actually very similar to why Base on Balls are not counted as at bats because it should not reduce a players batting average yet it increases their efficiency as a hitter (measured by on base percentage)

  Because foul shots use up an offensive possession. If PP takes 20 shots in a game and makes 10 baskets that's 20 points on 20 shots. If he takes 20 shots in the next game and makes 2 out of 10 shots, gets fouled on 10 shots and makes 8 of the 20 foul shots that's 12 points that resulted from the 20 shots. You'd be claiming that the 12 points on 20 shots is more efficient than the 20 points on 20 shots because the box score would show 12 points on 10 shots. This is entirelyt different from a base on balls because the walk doesn't "use up" an at bat. If there was one out before the batter walked there's still one out after he walks.

It isnt different at all. If you want to  use a selective portion of a post (the part that was a simile)and go to ridiculous extreme examples you can attempt to argue basically anything.

FTA comes with other benifits that a simple fga do not.

So the nba stat gods have decided not to include it in the statistics but you have.

20 pts on 20 shots is a horrible game, that is an antoine walker special, and is less efficient then 12 points on 10 shots.

And it does use a "possession" but it can save time leading to a greater number of possessions in the game overall that is the point.

The other benefits are marginal. The real benefit is that even the worst FTA shooter on your team is likely to get a point per two free throw attempts. Once you have a good shooter at the line that average is even higher, 1.6 or better. Even wide open shots typically have a lower conversion rate that FTAs.

I'd also point out that most people who look at stats in the NBA do look at TS%, which accounts for how free throw attempts use up a possession most of the time.

[Carhole]

I never get the argument that foul shots some how negates a percent of a players scoring efficiency - or that you "have to take the foul shots into account as ft attempts".

It is actually very similar to why Base on Balls are not counted as at bats because it should not reduce a players batting average yet it increases their efficiency as a hitter (measured by on base percentage)

  Because foul shots use up an offensive possession. If PP takes 20 shots in a game and makes 10 baskets that's 20 points on 20 shots. If he takes 20 shots in the next game and makes 2 out of 10 shots, gets fouled on 10 shots and makes 8 of the 20 foul shots that's 12 points that resulted from the 20 shots. You'd be claiming that the 12 points on 20 shots is more efficient than the 20 points on 20 shots because the box score would show 12 points on 10 shots. This is entirelyt different from a base on balls because the walk doesn't "use up" an at bat. If there was one out before the batter walked there's still one out after he walks.

It isnt different at all. If you want to  use a selective portion of a post (the part that was a simile)and go to ridiculous extreme examples you can attempt to argue basically anything.

FTA comes with other benifits that a simple fga do not.

So the nba stat gods have decided not to include it in the statistics but you have.

20 pts on 20 shots is a horrible game, that is an antoine walker special, and is less efficient then 12 points on 10 shots.

And it does use a "possession" but it can save time leading to a greater number of possessions in the game overall that is the point.

The other benefits are marginal. The real benefit is that even the worst FTA shooter on your team is likely to get a point per two free throw attempts. Once you have a good shooter at the line that average is even higher, 1.6 or better. Even wide open shots typically have a lower conversion rate that FTAs.

I'd also point out that most people who look at stats in the NBA do look at TS%, which accounts for how free throw attempts use up a possession most of the time.

I agree that is why TS% is a much better stat.

However I disagree that the other benefits are marginal.

And base on balls do not use up at bats, they are "plate appearances" they are not logged as at bats

[Fafnir]

Then why are you arguing about FTAs and whether or not considering them as shot attempts is appropriate? That is the exact approach TS% takes.

The other benefits are getting to the penalty for a few extra FTAs late in the quarter and getting other players in foul trouble. They definitely help out an offense, but the effects are very noisey and on a per possession basis very marginal. If you're talking about the team as a whole, you can definitely look at it though.

And base on balls do not use up at bats, they are "plate appearances" they are not logged as at bats

*golf clap* for semantics. Plate appearances and at bats are used interchangeable except in contracts and officialy score keepers books.

[jimmywolfrey]

I don't think you can just simply say "Big 3, yall need to shoot more".   I think its possible that the reason they have high TS%s is that they shoot when its most likely for them to make it.  That may mean that they defer to other players when they are covered well or double teamed.  Part of the TS% and other effeciency type ratings is that the player is smart of enough to know when he is best able to succeed. 

Glen Davis is never ever double teamed and still sucks in terms of efficiency.  I can't stand Baby's game at all and it pains me seeing such a high volume shooter getting any type of praise on the offensive end.

To me, its imperative to incorporate Jeff Green and hope Shaq/JO can come back and contribute. 

[BballTim]

I never get the argument that foul shots some how negates a percent of a players scoring efficiency - or that you "have to take the foul shots into account as ft attempts".

It is actually very similar to why Base on Balls are not counted as at bats because it should not reduce a players batting average yet it increases their efficiency as a hitter (measured by on base percentage)

  Because foul shots use up an offensive possession. If PP takes 20 shots in a game and makes 10 baskets that's 20 points on 20 shots. If he takes 20 shots in the next game and makes 2 out of 10 shots, gets fouled on 10 shots and makes 8 of the 20 foul shots that's 12 points that resulted from the 20 shots. You'd be claiming that the 12 points on 20 shots is more efficient than the 20 points on 20 shots because the box score would show 12 points on 10 shots. This is entirelyt different from a base on balls because the walk doesn't "use up" an at bat. If there was one out before the batter walked there's still one out after he walks.

It isnt different at all. If you want to  use a selective portion of a post (the part that was a simile)and go to ridiculous extreme examples you can attempt to argue basically anything.

FTA comes with other benifits that a simple fga do not.

So the nba stat gods have decided not to include it in the statistics but you have.

20 pts on 20 shots is a horrible game, that is an antoine walker special, and is less efficient then 12 points on 10 shots.

And it does use a "possession" but it can save time leading to a greater number of possessions in the game overall that is the point.

The other benefits are marginal. The real benefit is that even the worst FTA shooter on your team is likely to get a point per two free throw attempts. Once you have a good shooter at the line that average is even higher, 1.6 or better. Even wide open shots typically have a lower conversion rate that FTAs.

I'd also point out that most people who look at stats in the NBA do look at TS%, which accounts for how free throw attempts use up a possession most of the time.

I agree that is why TS% is a much better stat.

However I disagree that the other benefits are marginal.

And base on balls do not use up at bats, they are "plate appearances" they are not logged as at bats

  First of all, you're claiming that TS% is a much better stat and you're arguing the opposite. Secondly, you're missing the bigger picture. 20 points on 20 shots is less efficient than 12 points on 10 shots, but PP took 20 shots during that time, only 10 of them showed up as shots in the box score because he was fouled on the other shots. I agree that there are benefits to getting fouled and hitting your shots.

  But when your team gets the ball, you do something with it and the other team gets it back. You generally either score or miss a shot and don't get the rebound or turn the ball over and the other team gets it back. Shooting and scoring uses a possession, shooting and missing and not getting the rebound uses a possession, and getting fouled and making your free throws uses a possession.

  If Paul takes 20 shots without getting fouled and makes 10 shots (no offensive rebounds) he uses 20 possessions to get those 20 points. If he shoots the ball 20 times and gets fouled 10 times and goes 2-10 from the floor and 8-20 from the line then by the box score he got 12 points on 10 shots but from a game perspective he got 12 points from 20 possessions. It's not more efficient than 20 points on 20 shots, it's much less efficient.

  It's nothing like a walk because the free throws used up a possession, so the other team got the ball back afterward. If a team were allowed a maximum of 5 batters in an inning so that walk cost you a chance at getting a hit it would be the same.

[ballin]

I never get the argument that foul shots some how negates a percent of a players scoring efficiency - or that you "have to take the foul shots into account as ft attempts".

It is actually very similar to why Base on Balls are not counted as at bats because it should not reduce a players batting average yet it increases their efficiency as a hitter (measured by on base percentage)

  Because foul shots use up an offensive possession. If PP takes 20 shots in a game and makes 10 baskets that's 20 points on 20 shots. If he takes 20 shots in the next game and makes 2 out of 10 shots, gets fouled on 10 shots and makes 8 of the 20 foul shots that's 12 points that resulted from the 20 shots. You'd be claiming that the 12 points on 20 shots is more efficient than the 20 points on 20 shots because the box score would show 12 points on 10 shots. This is entirelyt different from a base on balls because the walk doesn't "use up" an at bat. If there was one out before the batter walked there's still one out after he walks.

It isnt different at all. If you want to  use a selective portion of a post (the part that was a simile)and go to ridiculous extreme examples you can attempt to argue basically anything.

FTA comes with other benifits that a simple fga do not.

So the nba stat gods have decided not to include it in the statistics but you have.

20 pts on 20 shots is a horrible game, that is an antoine walker special, and is less efficient then 12 points on 10 shots.

And it does use a "possession" but it can save time leading to a greater number of possessions in the game overall that is the point.

The other benefits are marginal. The real benefit is that even the worst FTA shooter on your team is likely to get a point per two free throw attempts. Once you have a good shooter at the line that average is even higher, 1.6 or better. Even wide open shots typically have a lower conversion rate that FTAs.

I'd also point out that most people who look at stats in the NBA do look at TS%, which accounts for how free throw attempts use up a possession most of the time.

I agree that is why TS% is a much better stat.

However I disagree that the other benefits are marginal.

And base on balls do not use up at bats, they are "plate appearances" they are not logged as at bats

  First of all, you're claiming that TS% is a much better stat and you're arguing the opposite. Secondly, you're missing the bigger picture. 20 points on 20 shots is less efficient than 12 points on 10 shots, but PP took 20 shots during that time, only 10 of them showed up as shots in the box score because he was fouled on the other shots. I agree that there are benefits to getting fouled and hitting your shots.

  But when your team gets the ball, you do something with it and the other team gets it back. You generally either score or miss a shot and don't get the rebound or turn the ball over and the other team gets it back. Shooting and scoring uses a possession, shooting and missing and not getting the rebound uses a possession, and getting fouled and making your free throws uses a possession.

  If Paul takes 20 shots without getting fouled and makes 10 shots (no offensive rebounds) he uses 20 possessions to get those 20 points. If he shoots the ball 20 times and gets fouled 10 times and goes 2-10 from the floor and 8-20 from the line then by the box score he got 12 points on 10 shots but from a game perspective he got 12 points from 20 possessions. It's not more efficient than 20 points on 20 shots, it's much less efficient.

  It's nothing like a walk because the free throws used up a possession, so the other team got the ball back afterward. If a team were allowed a maximum of 5 batters in an inning so that walk cost you a chance at getting a hit it would be the same.

I think you missed a point somebody made earlier.

If you recall, our offensive rating is 106.6

That means, our offense is likely to score 1.066 points every time it goes down the floor.

Other than Shaq and Rondo (notoriously bad free throw shooters), there is not a single other player ON OUR ENTIRE TEAM that would fail to improve our efficiency by taking free throws.

In other words, if the player shoots over 53.33% from the line (1.066/2) then the player is HELPING our offense. If a player is a 90% free throw shooter like Ray, well, then I can't even stress how insanely efficient that is and how much it helps the team.

That's not even counting the other benefits of getting to the line listed by some of the other posters.

For those reasons free throws are the most efficient shot in the game unless you're actually beyond miserable at shooting them.

But none of this matters all that much since TS% accounts for free throw percentage. All I'm saying is, if you want to factor in free throws, then the fact that Paul Pierce, Ray and KG get to the line far more than Rondo actually really hurts your case and supports the fact that the Big 3 should get the ball more (which they should).

[BballTim]

I never get the argument that foul shots some how negates a percent of a players scoring efficiency - or that you "have to take the foul shots into account as ft attempts".

It is actually very similar to why Base on Balls are not counted as at bats because it should not reduce a players batting average yet it increases their efficiency as a hitter (measured by on base percentage)

  Because foul shots use up an offensive possession. If PP takes 20 shots in a game and makes 10 baskets that's 20 points on 20 shots. If he takes 20 shots in the next game and makes 2 out of 10 shots, gets fouled on 10 shots and makes 8 of the 20 foul shots that's 12 points that resulted from the 20 shots. You'd be claiming that the 12 points on 20 shots is more efficient than the 20 points on 20 shots because the box score would show 12 points on 10 shots. This is entirelyt different from a base on balls because the walk doesn't "use up" an at bat. If there was one out before the batter walked there's still one out after he walks.

It isnt different at all. If you want to  use a selective portion of a post (the part that was a simile)and go to ridiculous extreme examples you can attempt to argue basically anything.

FTA comes with other benifits that a simple fga do not.

So the nba stat gods have decided not to include it in the statistics but you have.

20 pts on 20 shots is a horrible game, that is an antoine walker special, and is less efficient then 12 points on 10 shots.

And it does use a "possession" but it can save time leading to a greater number of possessions in the game overall that is the point.

The other benefits are marginal. The real benefit is that even the worst FTA shooter on your team is likely to get a point per two free throw attempts. Once you have a good shooter at the line that average is even higher, 1.6 or better. Even wide open shots typically have a lower conversion rate that FTAs.

I'd also point out that most people who look at stats in the NBA do look at TS%, which accounts for how free throw attempts use up a possession most of the time.

I agree that is why TS% is a much better stat.

However I disagree that the other benefits are marginal.

And base on balls do not use up at bats, they are "plate appearances" they are not logged as at bats

  First of all, you're claiming that TS% is a much better stat and you're arguing the opposite. Secondly, you're missing the bigger picture. 20 points on 20 shots is less efficient than 12 points on 10 shots, but PP took 20 shots during that time, only 10 of them showed up as shots in the box score because he was fouled on the other shots. I agree that there are benefits to getting fouled and hitting your shots.

  But when your team gets the ball, you do something with it and the other team gets it back. You generally either score or miss a shot and don't get the rebound or turn the ball over and the other team gets it back. Shooting and scoring uses a possession, shooting and missing and not getting the rebound uses a possession, and getting fouled and making your free throws uses a possession.

  If Paul takes 20 shots without getting fouled and makes 10 shots (no offensive rebounds) he uses 20 possessions to get those 20 points. If he shoots the ball 20 times and gets fouled 10 times and goes 2-10 from the floor and 8-20 from the line then by the box score he got 12 points on 10 shots but from a game perspective he got 12 points from 20 possessions. It's not more efficient than 20 points on 20 shots, it's much less efficient.

  It's nothing like a walk because the free throws used up a possession, so the other team got the ball back afterward. If a team were allowed a maximum of 5 batters in an inning so that walk cost you a chance at getting a hit it would be the same.

I think you missed a point somebody made earlier.

If you recall, our offensive rating is 106.6

That means, our offense is likely to score 1.066 points every time it goes down the floor.

Other than Shaq and Rondo (notoriously bad free throw shooters), there is not a single other player ON OUR ENTIRE TEAM that would fail to improve our efficiency by taking free throws.

In other words, if the player shoots over 53.33% from the line (1.066/2) then the player is HELPING our offense. If a player is a 90% free throw shooter like Ray, well, then I can't even stress how insanely efficient that is and how much it helps the team.

That's not even counting the other benefits of getting to the line listed by some of the other posters.

For those reasons free throws are the most efficient shot in the game unless you're actually beyond miserable at shooting them.

But none of this matters all that much since TS% accounts for free throw percentage. All I'm saying is, if you want to factor in free throws, then the fact that Paul Pierce, Ray and KG get to the line far more than Rondo actually really hurts your case and supports the fact that the Big 3 should get the ball more (which they should).

  Hurts my case? What case? All I said was that free throws need to be accounted for in scoring efficiency. Well, that and your "taking more shots doesn't affect efficiency" doesn't really make a lot of sense. But I didn't say that the big three shouldn't take more of the shots. In fact I said "But in general you are right, the offense is more efficient when Rondo's passing and the big three are shooting" in my first post.

  And of course I understand all about free throws and offensive efficiency and the like.

[Jaycelt]

Tim, not every trip to the free throw line is the result of a shot.  You know that.
You seem to want to make up stats to prove a point here.
I think just about everyone who watched that game last night came away feeling that Rondo took to many shots and our scorers weren't given enough opportunities.  Even Doc said as much.
It makes you look silly when you turn yourself into knots trying to defend Rondo no matter what the situation. 
Last night Rondo looked like he was purposely ignoring Pierce for the majority of the game.  Why?  I have no idea. But some of Doc's comments leads me to believe he saw the same thing. 
No one player is bigger than the team.  Let's just hope everyone understands that. 

[Spicoli]

The Facts

Let's start off with the positive: the Celtics defense is second in the league at at 99.9 defensive rating (that's points allowed per 100 possessions).

Now for the bad news: our offense is ranked 17th in the league with a 106.8 offensive rating (points scored per 100 possessions).

So what?

Well over the last 10 years there has only been a single team to win a championship with an offensive rating this bad: the Detroit Pistons. Needless to say, our offense could use improvement if we want to have a serious chance at winning it all.

Where's the problem?

Well, offensive rating is determined by offensive efficiency, so let's look at some True Shooting %'s.

.614 -Paul Pierce
.620 -Ray Allen
.568 -Kevin Garnett

.499 -Rajon Rondo
.504 -Glen Davis

As we can see, Rajon Rondo and Glen Davis are less efficient than the Big 3. Much, much less efficient. This in and of itself isn't such a bad thing... championship teams have occasionally employed offensively inept players throughout history. Take Ben Wallace for example on that Pistons team I mentioned earlier. It's not a big deal as long as they don't shoot that much and drag the team's efficiency down, right?

Well unfortunately, that's exactly where this team's problem is. On a per minute basis, Glen Davis takes about as many shots as each of the Big 3 (around 13 shots per 36 min.). Rondo takes only a couple of shots less. Yikes. For comparison, Ben Wallace shot only about 5 shots per 36 min. the year that Pistons team won a championship.

So what do we do?

Fortunately, the solution is simple. Doc needs to tell Rondo and Davis to shoot less, and tell the Big 3 to shoot more.

There's an objection to this that's sure to follow: the same old, tired, incorrect "usage" argument. The argument is as follows "The more shots a player takes, the more their efficiency will decrease." There's an appeal to the logic of it... that the more a single player takes shots, the more the opposing defense will collapse on them. Makes sense.

Unfortunately, the facts show us that this happens to be a myth. David Berri over at Wages of Wins did a statistical regression and found no measurable link between field goal attempts and efficiency, and reasoned that if there was a connection, the correlation was minimal at best. For example, some of Kobe's most efficient years were the 3 years he led the league in field goal attempts.

So Pierce, Allen, and KG should take more shots, as it is unlikely to affect their efficiency.

But let's take it a step further and assume that the usage argument is correct. After all, didn't Ray, Paul, and KG all have lower TS%'s before coming to Boston? Indeed they did, but this could more likely be attributed to their terrible teammates. It's pretty easy to double Kevin Garnett when there isn't another threat on his team (that sort of thing).

Sorry, I'll get back on track. Let's say that the lower TS%'s were 100%, purely, and solely because the usage argument is correct. Guess what? Ray, Paul, and KG would all still be significantly more efficient than Rondo and Davis TAKING DOUBLE THE AMOUNT OF SHOTS THEY CURRENTLY TAKE, EVEN IF THE USAGE THEORY IS ASSUMED TO BE TRUE. Look at their stats and you'll see that history proves this.

So in conclusion, even if you think efficiency is correlated with field goal attempts, Ray, Paul, and KG should all be taking more shots if we want our offense to improve.

TP for the research and excellent post. It is absolutely ridiculous that Ray, Pierce, and KG are taking such few shots per game when they are head and shoulders more capable offensively than anyone else on the Roster sans Jeff Green (i think Green is very smooth on offense). Unfortunately, i don't see this changing much, as Glen Davis has been given the green light to shoot off the bench, and as Rondo cannot figure out when to shoot and when not to (he doesn't shoot when he should, and shoots when he shouldn't).

[18isGREATERthan72]

When Shaq returns, I think this will help both our offensive efficiency and our defense against points in the paint.  Shaq REALLY helped us get off to quick starts at the beginning of the season.  He also makes it less desirable to attack the paint for the opposing team.

I'd like to see Pierce and KG utilized more offensively...  Not just the standard 1-4 pick and pop that Rondo and KG run, but more post ups.  KG is exceptional at making the pass inside to get someone like Ray or Rondo cutting to the basket for an easy 2.

[Spilling Green Dye]

Ballin, great post, and thank you for the research.

Expect to see more opposition from people here, but I'm in agreement with you.

A few months ago I started a thread highlight that Shaq needed to take more shots.  Even if his increase in shots led to a 10% decline in his fg%, he was still a much more efficient option than Rondo & Davis shooting.  But alas there was enormous pushback to even that.. and 10% assumed in a drop is a lot!

Great job, and I agree with your analysis.  Its time to get back to the basics, and have each player do what they do best.  For Rondo that is driving to the hoop and either finishing nearby or dishing it.  For Davis that is setting picks, looking for the offensive rebound, and taking charges.  Players need to stick with what they are good at!!!

[Megatron]

Celtics are in a slump, they arent robots.

They will eventually come out of it and hopefully Shaq and JO will both be back and in rhythm by that time.



That picture tells it all, this team isnt trying. Unless you think the above picture is accurate, which is basically an oxymoron.