Re: FW: [Celtics' Stuff "They have mistaken the garnish for the s teak ."-Herald

[Francis Hsu <francis@ai.mit.edu>]

On Fri, Mar 22, 2002 at 02:34:20PM -0500, Berry, Mark  S wrote:
> The one thing I'll say Shawn, is that it's not as simple as "33 percent on
> threes is as good as 50 percent on twos..." There's a reason the
> point-per-shot mark is not considered good: You're not factoring in free
> throws. You can find stats on points per shot, and 1.00 is an incredibly low
> number. Teams that shoot a lot of three-pointers not only shoot a low

Actually, the biggest argument against points per shot is that it
overemphasizes the value of free throws, because missed shots where the
shooter is fouled are not counted as attempts.  It's why someone like Eric
Williams can get a surprisingly high PPS, despite poor shooting.

Let's say someone takes 5 shots, misses all of them, but fouled on 4, and
makes 50% of their free throws.  Their stats read: FG: 0-1, FT: 4-8

In this example, the PPS calculation is 4 points / 1 FGA = 4 PPS

Second example, someone takes 5 shots, makes four of them while being fouled,
and makes the free throw for each.  Their stats read FG: 4-5, FT: 4-4

Their PPS calculation is 12 points / 5 FGA = 2.4

In both examples, the players take 5 shots.  The second player is more
productive, yet the first player gets a higher PPS.

> The Celtics are winning this season not because of their reliance on the
> 3-pointer. They're winning because of their defense. That's it. If they
> could combine this defense with a more efficient offense, they'd be even
> better. 

The Celtics are also scoring more points per game than last year as well,
and part of that may be because we're shooting more 3s.  The statistics
compared to last year seem to support that shooting more 3s at the expense
of less free throw attempts is working out in our favor.

Francis