Re: PPS vs. FG%

["Cecil Wright" <cecil@hfx.eastlink.ca>]

If someone shoots 41% on 3s, I'll take him.

Cecil




----- Original Message -----
From: "Berry, Mark S" <berrym@BATTELLE.ORG>
To: <francis@ai.mit.edu>; <celtics@igtc.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 1:15 PM
Subject: Re: PPS vs. FG%


> 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