Re: PPS vs. FG%

["Berry, Mark S" <berrym@BATTELLE.ORG>]

Francis wrote:

Why is field goal % seemingly emphasized more than points per shot?  Is
there some drawback to using points per shot as the primary measurement
of effectiveness/productivity on offense?

---end---

Good question Francis. For me, there are a couple of reasons. First, I have
a better understanding of the context of field goal percentage. That is, I
know 41 percent stinks. I really couldn't tell you, without doing a little
research, what a good points per shot is. Probably not a good reason, but
that's one.

Also, I think points per shot is deceiving. It's easy to say "take 90
three-pointers and make 33 percent, and that's the same as taking 90
two-pointers and making 50 percent." In the strictest sense, that's true.
But that's 15 more missed shots, which leads to 15 more fast-break
opportunities for the opponent. Never mind the damage quick three-pointers
do to your offense, the break they give the defense and the diminishing
returns the more you shoot the three-pointer. Now, I'm oversimplifying,
because I'd guess points per shot also calculates free throws (doesn't it?),
but you get the point. As an example of that last point, I'm betting Iverson
and Stackhouse, who shot comparable FG percentages to Antoine last year,
probably score more points per shot because they were among the league
leaders in FT attempts and makes, while Antoine was nowhere near the leaders
in that category. Of course, if FTs aren't figured into the equation, I'm
way off base.

Neither one is perfect, but I think FG percentage does a pretty good job of
measuring offensive efficiency, especially when considered along with FT
attempts and makes.

Mark