Who Are The NBA's Most Valuable Mid-Range Shooters?

by Evanz on Sep 24, 2011 8:05 AM PDT in Science

Next up in my series of introducing my marginal scoring rating metric is the mid-range shot. And yes, Dirk Nowitzki is the best. But wait there's more. You may find it interesting to know that Andrea Bargnani is the second highest rated center. Ooohh. If you think that's fascinating, then read on after the jump.

In my last post, I introduced a new marginal scoring stat (PSAMS) and posted the formulas and ratings for inside scoring. Here, I will introduce the metric for evaluating mid-range shooting, which I define as any shot in between 3 ft from the rim and the 3-pt line. I lump all these shots together because, according to Hoopdata, the averages for 3-9 ft (39%), 10-15 ft (39.3%), and 16-23 ft (39.4%), are very similar (especially compared to the averages for inside scoring, 64.1%, and 3-pt shooting, 53.8%).

Recall (or learn for the first time) that the league-average effective FG% (eFG%) is about 50% (to be exact, it's 49.8%). The fact that the average mid-range shot is actually worse than the, uh, average average shot(?), makes evaluation somewhat trickier, and likely somewhat more open to challenge. Here's why. In theory, players hurt their teams when they take mid-range shots. Unless you're Dirk Nowitzki, that is. Among the 150 or so players in my database (>40+ games, >25+ mpg), Dirk is the only one who shot better than 50% from mid-range. As I've written previously (here and here), I believe that mid-range shots are an important and inevitable part of the game, and that, because somebody has to take those shots, you just want to make sure your best shooter is the one doing it. If you think about it this way, you begin to realize that the players who are given the responsibility risk hurting their overall averages. To be sure, some players may force too many of those shots, but it's very difficult to know which shots are necessary (after all, they don't tell us!). Therefore, what I've come up with for the metric actually is a bit of a hedge, because it averages the two philosophies. In both philosophies, players who shoot less than their "fair share" of mid-range shots (defined by the average mid-range FGA for their position) are penalized for their "undershooting". How this is done will be explained a bit later. Where the philosophies differ is their handling of players who shoot more than the average number of mid-range shots for their position. How do we handle those extra shots?

Philosophy I: All "extra" mid-range FGA are shots taken away from teammates who would have taken average ("better") shots, i.e. shots that should be compared to the league-average 50%.
Philosophy II: All "extra" mid-range FGA are not really extra at all, and would have still been taken by a teammate. Therefore, these shots should also be compared to the average mid-range shot efficiency of ~39%.

You can see how these are two very different viewpoints, right? In fact, I would argue it's one of the central debates of basketball fandom, one that separates Kobe Bryant (and Monta Ellis) fans from their detractors, for example. There's really no good way right now to resolve the debate, so for now, I'm going to calculate the rating using both philosophies, and then take the simple average between them. Having said that, I think the final results will seem reasonable to folks on both sides of the argument.

As in my last post, I will use a couple of players to illustrate the actual calculation. First up is a no-brainer, Dirk Nowitzki. Dirk averaged 13.8 mid-range FGA per 40 minutes with 50.4% efficiency. Here's how I calculate his rating according to Philosophy I:

PSAMS{I} = 2*(13.3 - 8.6)*(50.4-49.8) + 2*8.6*(50.4-40.2) = 1.78

The first term on the right represents the "extra" mid-range shots, which according to Philosophy I, are compared to the league-average average shot efficiency (I know, try saying that 10 times fast). The second term represents the average number of mid-range shots (for the PF position), which are being compared to the average mid-range shot efficiency for PF. Follow all that? Here's how Dirk rates according to Philosophy II:

PSAMS{II} = 2*13.3*(50.4-40.2) = 2.71

That one is simple, right? Just compare all his shots to the average mid-range efficiency for PF. Dirk's final rating is then simply the average of the two, in this case, 2.25.

Now we need to look at a player that shoots fewer than the average mid-range FGA. Arron Afflalo is one such "undershooter", taking only 3.8 mid-range FGA per 40 compared to the average 6.7 for the SG position. Here's how I calculate the rating for Afflalo (there is no need to distinguish between the two philosophies):

PSAMS=2*3.8*(44.7-39.4)-2*(6.7-3.8)*(49.8-39.4) = -0.23

The first term here represents the shots that Afflalo did take compared to the average mid-range efficiency for SG. The second term represents a "penalty" for undershooting. The idea is that the shots that he didn't take would be shifted to teammates who otherwise would have taken better shots. Therefore, the efficiency differential (49.8-39.4) represents the difference between an average shot and an average mid-range shot. The reason I believe we need such a penalty is that if players simply "opt out" of these types of shots, their PSAMS would be 0, which would make them appear to be better shooters than about half the players at their position. Any system that rewards a player for not shooting at all doesn't make sense to me. You can't win games by opting out of shooting. With the groundwork laid out, let's get to the ratings. Here are the top and bottom 25, respectively.

Top 25 Mid-Range Shooters

The FGA and FG% are for mid-range shots.

RANK	NAME	TEAM	POS	FGA	FG%	PSAMS-MR
1	Dirk Nowitzki	DAL	4	13.3	50.4%	2.25
2	Al Horford	ATL	5	10.0	49.0%	1.39
3	Elton Brand	PHI	4	10.7	46.7%	1.19
4	Luke Ridnour	MIN	1	7.0	47.1%	1.10
5	Beno Udrih	SAC	1	6.8	47.1%	1.08
6	Steve Nash	PHO	1	7.7	46.8%	1.08
7	LeBron James	MIA	3	9.5	45.3%	1.08
8	David West	NOR	4	12.7	45.7%	0.99
9	Stephen Curry	GSW	1	8.1	45.7%	0.92
10	Anthony Morrow	NJN	2	6.4	46.9%	0.87
11	Kevin Garnett	BOS	4	10.3	44.7%	0.75
12	Luis Scola	HOU	4	13.2	44.7%	0.73
13	Chris Paul	NOR	1	8.1	44.4%	0.72
14	Jason Terry	DAL	2	9.4	44.7%	0.71
15	Pau Gasol	LAL	4	9.9	44.4%	0.71
16	Brandon Bass	ORL	4	8.8	44.3%	0.70
17	Ray Allen	BOS	2	5.7	47.4%	0.67
18	Sasha Vujacic	NJN	2	6.8	44.1%	0.63
19	Paul Millsap	UTH	4	9.1	44.0%	0.63
20	Chris Bosh	MIA	4	10.8	43.5%	0.50
21	Jamal Crawford	ATL	2	6.7	43.3%	0.49
22	Tony Parker	SAS	1	8.6	43.0%	0.48
23	Amare Stoudemire	NYK	4	13.5	43.7%	0.46
24	Deron Williams	UTH	1	6.3	42.9%	0.46
25	Joe Johnson	ATL	2	9.7	43.3%	0.44

Bottom 25 Mid-Range Shooters

Some of the names on this list may surprise you, but before bugging out, make sure to look at their FGA and FG%, and compare those to the players on the Top 25 list, and keep the two philosophies in mind.

RANK	NAME	TEAM	POS	FGA	FG%	PSAMS-MR
152	Andray Blatche	WAS	4	10.6	31.1%	-2.12
151	Greg Monroe	DET	4	2.4	25.0%	-1.94
150	Marcus Camby	POR	4	3.8	28.9%	-1.80
149	DeMarcus Cousins	SAC	4	11.3	33.6%	-1.75
148	Tyreke Evans	SAC	1	8.1	29.6%	-1.68
147	Trevor Ariza	NOR	3	3.8	23.7%	-1.59
146	John Wall	WAS	1	7.5	29.3%	-1.54
145	Russell Westbrook	OKC	1	10.2	34.3%	-1.34
144	Ron Artest	LAL	3	3.7	27.0%	-1.34
143	J.J. Hickson	CLE	4	8.8	33.0%	-1.30
142	Brandon Rush	IND	2	4.5	31.1%	-1.24
141	Landry Fields	NYK	2	2.4	33.3%	-1.22
140	Wesley Matthews	POR	2	4.4	31.8%	-1.18
139	Jodie Meeks	PHI	2	2.3	34.8%	-1.17
138	Kenyon Martin	DEN	4	6.0	35.0%	-1.13
137	Chuck Hayes	HOU	5	2.7	33.3%	-1.13
136	Jason Kidd	DAL	1	2.3	34.8%	-1.12
135	Danilo Gallinari	NYK	3	3.6	30.6%	-1.09
134	DeAndre Jordan	LAC	5	1.0	40.0%	-1.09
133	Kwame Brown	CHA	5	3.5	34.3%	-1.03
132	Brandon Roy	POR	2	9.1	35.2%	-1.02
131	Kyle Lowry	HOU	1	3.9	33.3%	-1.01
130	James Harden	OKC	2	2.7	37.0%	-1.00
129	Thabo Sefolosha	OKC	2	2.0	40.0%	-0.99
128	Jason Richardson	ORL	2	4.3	34.9%	-0.92

Here are the ratings broken down by position (ORNK is overall ranking and PRNK is ranking by position):

PG

ORNK	PRNK	NAME	TEAM	POS	FGA	FG%	PSAMS-MR
4	1	Luke Ridnour	MIN	1	7.0	47.1%	1.10
5	2	Beno Udrih	SAC	1	6.8	47.1%	1.08
6	3	Steve Nash	PHO	1	7.7	46.8%	1.08
9	4	Stephen Curry	GSW	1	8.1	45.7%	0.92
13	5	Chris Paul	NOR	1	8.1	44.4%	0.72
22	6	Tony Parker	SAS	1	8.6	43.0%	0.48
24	7	Deron Williams	UTH	1	6.3	42.9%	0.46
32	8	Raymond Felton	NYK	1	6.5	41.5%	0.34
48	9	Jose Calderon	TOR	1	5.8	41.4%	0.13
49	10	George Hill	SAS	1	5.2	42.3%	0.07
52	11	Jameer Nelson	ORL	1	5.7	40.4%	-0.01
54	12	Devin Harris	NJN	1	6.7	38.8%	-0.03
55	13	Jrue Holiday	PHI	1	6.7	38.8%	-0.03
56	14	Darren Collison	IND	1	8.3	39.8%	-0.06
59	15	Daniel Gibson	CLE	1	5.5	40.0%	-0.10
64	16	Mike Conley	MEM	1	6.0	38.3%	-0.18
68	17	Baron Davis	LAC	1	6.7	37.3%	-0.23
69	18	Andre Miller	POR	1	8.3	38.6%	-0.26
70	19	Derrick Rose	CHI	1	9.2	39.1%	-0.26
76	20	Ty Lawson	DEN	1	4.1	41.5%	-0.32
83	21	Rodney Stuckey	DET	1	7.1	36.6%	-0.39
92	22	Brandon Jennings	MIL	1	6.8	35.3%	-0.52
93	23	Ramon Sessions	CLE	1	7.7	36.4%	-0.52
98	24	Rajon Rondo	BOS	1	5.2	36.5%	-0.53
97	25	Chauncey Billups	DEN	1	5.2	36.5%	-0.53
111	26	Derek Fisher	LAL	1	5.1	35.3%	-0.68
115	27	D.J. Augustin	CHA	1	4.5	35.6%	-0.74
125	28	Mike Bibby	ATL	1	3.7	35.1%	-0.90
131	29	Kyle Lowry	HOU	1	3.9	33.3%	-1.01
136	30	Jason Kidd	DAL	1	2.3	34.8%	-1.12
145	31	Russell Westbrook	OKC	1	10.2	34.3%	-1.34
146	32	John Wall	WAS	1	7.5	29.3%	-1.54
148	33	Tyreke Evans	SAC	1	8.1	29.6%	-1.68

SG

ORNK	PRNK	NAME	TEAM	POS	FGA	FG%	PSAMS-MR
10	1	Anthony Morrow	NJN	2	6.4	46.9%	0.87
14	2	Jason Terry	DAL	2	9.4	44.7%	0.71
17	3	Ray Allen	BOS	2	5.7	47.4%	0.67
18	4	Sasha Vujacic	NJN	2	6.8	44.1%	0.63
21	5	Jamal Crawford	ATL	2	6.7	43.3%	0.49
25	6	Joe Johnson	ATL	2	9.7	43.3%	0.44
28	7	DeMar DeRozan	TOR	2	10.4	43.3%	0.42
30	8	Ben Gordon	DET	2	7.1	42.3%	0.37
31	9	Dwyane Wade	MIA	2	8.9	42.7%	0.36
33	10	Kobe Bryant	LAL	2	14.3	43.4%	0.33
36	11	Kirk Hinrich	WAS	2	7.2	41.7%	0.28
39	12	Nick Young	WAS	2	10.8	42.6%	0.26
66	13	Manu Ginobili	SAS	2	5.5	40.0%	-0.22
67	14	Arron Afflalo	DEN	2	3.8	44.7%	-0.23
71	15	J.J. Redick	ORL	2	4.2	42.9%	-0.26
79	16	John Salmons	MIL	2	7.9	38.0%	-0.35
80	17	Stephen Jackson	CHA	2	6.8	36.8%	-0.37
81	18	O.J. Mayo	MEM	2	7.7	37.7%	-0.37
82	19	Raja Bell	UTH	2	4.4	40.9%	-0.38
84	20	Richard Hamilton	DET	2	12.2	40.2%	-0.39
86	21	Anthony Parker	CLE	2	5.5	38.2%	-0.42
87	22	Vince Carter	PHO	2	7.1	36.6%	-0.43
101	23	Eric Gordon	LAC	2	6.8	35.3%	-0.57
118	24	Kevin Martin	HOU	2	8.4	35.7%	-0.79
119	25	Monta Ellis	GSW	2	10.0	37.0%	-0.82
126	26	Andre Iguodala	PHI	2	6.0	33.3%	-0.90
128	27	Jason Richardson	ORL	2	4.3	34.9%	-0.92
129	28	Thabo Sefolosha	OKC	2	2.0	40.0%	-0.99
130	29	James Harden	OKC	2	2.7	37.0%	-1.00
132	30	Brandon Roy	POR	2	9.1	35.2%	-1.02
139	31	Jodie Meeks	PHI	2	2.3	34.8%	-1.17
140	32	Wesley Matthews	POR	2	4.4	31.8%	-1.18
141	33	Landry Fields	NYK	2	2.4	33.3%	-1.22
142	34	Brandon Rush	IND	2	4.5	31.1%	-1.24

SF

ORNK	PRNK	NAME	TEAM	POS	FGA	FG%	PSAMS-MR
7	1	LeBron James	MIA	3	9.5	45.3%	1.08
26	2	Shawn Marion	DAL	3	8.4	41.7%	0.44
27	3	Paul Pierce	BOS	3	5.8	41.4%	0.43
35	4	Kevin Durant	OKC	3	11.1	41.4%	0.28
38	5	Hedo Turkoglu	ORL	3	4.9	42.9%	0.27
40	6	Luol Deng	CHI	3	6.1	39.3%	0.24
41	7	Grant Hill	PHO	3	8.4	40.5%	0.24
43	8	Marvin Williams	ATL	3	5.9	39.0%	0.18
46	9	Rudy Gay	MEM	3	9.4	40.4%	0.16
50	10	Mike Dunleavy	IND	3	4.1	43.9%	0.06
53	11	Wesley Johnson	MIN	3	5.9	37.3%	-0.02
57	12	Carmelo Anthony	DEN	3	10.8	39.8%	-0.06
60	13	Travis Outlaw	NJN	3	6.3	36.5%	-0.13
65	14	Ryan Gomes	LAC	3	4.2	40.5%	-0.19
72	15	Wilson Chandler	NYK	3	6.7	35.8%	-0.28
73	16	Tayshaun Prince	DET	3	10.6	38.7%	-0.28
88	17	Jared Dudley	PHO	3	3.9	38.5%	-0.44
89	18	Carlos Delfino	MIL	3	3.5	40.0%	-0.45
90	19	Nicolas Batum	POR	3	3.6	38.9%	-0.49
102	20	Jeff Green	OKC	3	5.8	32.8%	-0.57
104	21	C.J. Miles	UTH	3	7.3	34.2%	-0.60
105	22	Danny Granger	IND	3	8.0	35.0%	-0.62
108	23	Gerald Wallace	CHA	3	5.1	33.3%	-0.63
110	24	Richard Jefferson	SAS	3	3.1	38.7%	-0.65
114	25	Shane Battier	HOU	3	2.4	41.7%	-0.71
117	26	Luc Mbah a Moute	MIL	3	3.8	34.2%	-0.79
123	27	Dorell Wright	GSW	3	4.8	31.3%	-0.88
124	28	Andrei Kirilenko	UTH	3	4.0	32.5%	-0.89
135	29	Danilo Gallinari	NYK	3	3.6	30.6%	-1.09
144	30	Ron Artest	LAL	3	3.7	27.0%	-1.34
147	31	Trevor Ariza	NOR	3	3.8	23.7%	-1.59

PF

ORNK	PRNK	NAME	TEAM	POS	FGA	FG%	PSAMS-MR
1	1	Dirk Nowitzki	DAL	4	13.3	50.4%	2.25
3	2	Elton Brand	PHI	4	10.7	46.7%	1.19
8	3	David West	NOR	4	12.7	45.7%	0.99
11	4	Kevin Garnett	BOS	4	10.3	44.7%	0.75
12	5	Luis Scola	HOU	4	13.2	44.7%	0.73
15	6	Pau Gasol	LAL	4	9.9	44.4%	0.71
16	7	Brandon Bass	ORL	4	8.8	44.3%	0.70
19	8	Paul Millsap	UTH	4	9.1	44.0%	0.63
20	9	Chris Bosh	MIA	4	10.8	43.5%	0.50
23	10	Amare Stoudemire	NYK	4	13.5	43.7%	0.46
37	11	Zach Randolph	MEM	4	9.5	42.1%	0.27
42	12	David Lee	GSW	4	9.1	41.8%	0.23
51	13	LaMarcus Aldridge	POR	4	11.1	41.4%	0.03
61	14	Josh Smith	ATL	4	8.3	39.8%	-0.13
62	15	Boris Diaw	CHA	4	4.4	47.7%	-0.16
75	16	Ersan Ilyasova	MIL	4	6.6	40.9%	-0.30
74	17	Serge Ibaka	OKC	4	6.6	40.9%	-0.30
78	18	Carlos Boozer	CHI	4	10.4	39.4%	-0.34
85	19	Antawn Jamison	CLE	4	9.8	38.8%	-0.40
91	20	Michael Beasley	MIN	4	13.7	40.1%	-0.52
95	21	Channing Frye	PHO	4	5.0	42.0%	-0.53
96	22	Glen Davis	BOS	4	9.5	37.9%	-0.53
99	23	Carl Landry	SAC	4	9.3	37.6%	-0.55
103	24	Lamar Odom	LAL	4	5.1	41.2%	-0.59
106	25	Amir Johnson	TOR	4	4.5	42.2%	-0.62
109	26	Blake Griffin	LAC	4	9.4	37.2%	-0.64
112	27	Kris Humphries	NJN	4	5.6	39.3%	-0.69
113	28	Kevin Love	MIN	4	6.6	37.9%	-0.70
127	29	Thaddeus Young	PHI	4	7.6	35.5%	-0.91
138	30	Kenyon Martin	DEN	4	6.0	35.0%	-1.13
143	31	J.J. Hickson	CLE	4	8.8	33.0%	-1.30
149	32	DeMarcus Cousins	SAC	4	11.3	33.6%	-1.75
150	33	Marcus Camby	POR	4	3.8	28.9%	-1.80
151	34	Greg Monroe	DET	4	2.4	25.0%	-1.94
152	35	Andray Blatche	WAS	4	10.6	31.1%	-2.12

C

Hey, Andrea Bargnani fans, this might be the one stat you can hang on your hat.

ORNK	PRNK	NAME	TEAM	POS	FGA	FG%	PSAMS-MR
2	1	Al Horford	ATL	5	10.0	49.0%	1.39
29	2	Andrea Bargnani	TOR	5	12.0	44.2%	0.39
34	3	Marcin Gortat	PHO	5	6.8	42.6%	0.29
44	4	Marc Gasol	MEM	5	6.7	41.8%	0.18
45	5	Dwight Howard	ORL	5	6.7	41.8%	0.18
47	6	Brook Lopez	NJN	5	12.7	43.3%	0.15
58	7	Tim Duncan	SAS	5	11.2	42.0%	-0.09
63	8	Andrew Bogut	MIL	5	7.3	39.7%	-0.16
77	9	Andrew Bynum	LAL	5	5.3	39.6%	-0.33
94	10	Al Jefferson	UTH	5	11.9	40.3%	-0.52
100	11	Tyson Chandler	DAL	5	2.1	47.6%	-0.56
107	12	Nene Hilario	DEN	5	3.5	40.0%	-0.63
116	13	Joakim Noah	CHI	5	3.7	37.8%	-0.75
120	14	Emeka Okafor	NOR	5	3.5	37.1%	-0.83
121	15	JaVale McGee	WAS	5	4.5	35.6%	-0.84
122	16	Roy Hibbert	IND	5	10.5	38.1%	-0.86
133	17	Kwame Brown	CHA	5	3.5	34.3%	-1.03
134	18	DeAndre Jordan	LAC	5	1.0	40.0%	-1.09
137	19	Chuck Hayes	HOU	5	2.7	33.3%	-1.13

Next post will wrap up with 3-pt shooting and overall rankings combining all three shot distances into a single metric.

0 recs | 34 comments

Comments

Wow. Anthony Morrow led all SGs? Now I’m even angrier about that trade.

doubleteapot - September 24, 2011 reply

What trade? He left as (restricted) free agent.

That said, I was heartbroken at the time (indeed, I self-imposed a couple-week-long hiatus from Warriors talk) and still am a little miffed that we didn’t match NJ’s fairly reasonable 3/$12M contract. Basically, we could have had Turiaf and the three Anthonys for only slightly more $$$ than David Lee makes alone. And with Morrow/Reggie capably manning the 2 spot, perhaps we could have shopped Monta a little aggressively.

/Water under the bridge…/

Sleepy Freud - September 24, 2011 reply

He was probably referring to the fact that we ultimately “traded” him for an undetermined second rounder, though it still basically amounts to nothing and he might as well have walked.

WYK - September 24, 2011 reply

so essentialy we traded morrow for jenkins?

PIRATEWARRIOR - September 25, 2011 reply

Good work, though I can’t necessarily say that the findings show anything that we don’t already know. There are some surprises here and there (i.e. Jamal Crawford actually ranking a bit better than his low-efficiency rep would indicate), but in general the list plays out as expected given the strengths of those who were ranked.

WYK - September 24, 2011 reply

though I can’t necessarily say that the findings show anything that we don’t already know

It’s not always easy to come up with a metric that satisfies this criterion, so I’ll take it as a compliment.

Evanz - September 24, 2011 reply

btw, this is an example of cognitive bias

An old joke about the response to revolutionary new scientific theories states that there are three phases on the road to acceptance: 1. The theory is not true; 2. The theory is true, but it is unimportant; 3. The theory is true, and it is important — but we knew it all along.

It’s called the “”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias" >hindsight bias".

Hindsight bias, or alternatively the knew-it-all-along effect and creeping determinism, is the inclination to see events that have already occurred as being more predictable than they were before they took place.1 It is a multifaceted phenomenon that can affect different stages of designs, processes, contexts, and situations.2 Hindsight bias may cause memory distortion, where the recollection and reconstruction of content can lead to false theoretical outcomes. It has been suggested that the effect can cause extreme methodological problems while trying to analyze, understand, and interpret results in experimental studies. A basic example of the hindsight bias is when, after viewing the outcome of a potentially unforeseeable event, a person believes he or she “knew it all along”. Such examples are present in the writings of historians describing outcomes of battles, physicians recalling clinical trials, and in judicial systems trying to attribute responsibility and predictability of accidents.

Evanz - September 24, 2011 reply

An old joke about the response to revolutionary new scientific theories [snip]

And this relates to these basketball statistics … how?

Seriously, great diary. Very clearly laid out, logical, and persuasive, if perhaps not revolutionary. ;-)

Sleepy Freud - September 24, 2011 reply

yeah, certainly nothing revolutionary here

I’d say it’s more evolutionary, but some people might have even more problems with evolutionary ideas these days than revolutionary ones, depending on their politics ;)

Evanz - September 24, 2011 reply

oh, and thanks, btw

Evanz - September 24, 2011 reply

Interesting stuff

But I would be interested to see the numbers if you exclude the 3-9 ft range. Although the numbers indicate that the percentages are similar, I just don’t think of a 3-ft shot as being mid-range. I’d be really interested to see how excluding that range would affect the numbers for the big men, especially.

ERock386 - September 24, 2011 reply

averages

PF
3-9 ft: 40.9%
10-15 ft: 40.8%
16-23 ft: 41.5%

C
3-9 ft: 42.8%
10-15 ft: 39.2%
16-23 ft: 41.4%

For PF, it really doesn’t make a difference. And for C, there’s a little higher percentage at 3-9 ft, but I don’t think it’s worth creating an entirely separate category for that range.

Evanz - September 24, 2011 reply

But that’s overall percentage, and doesn’t account for individual differences. Aside from the numbers, it just intuitively seems like mid-range would be 10-23 ft.

ERock386 - September 24, 2011 reply

But that’s overall percentage, and doesn’t account for individual differences.

Specifically, what differences are you referring to? I just gave you the averages for those two positions and they are similar across all ranges. Is there some other factor that I am excluding?

Aside from the numbers, it just intuitively seems like mid-range would be 10-23 ft.

The stats I just gave you suggest that your intuition is wrong.

Evanz - September 24, 2011 reply

So just because the league as a whole shoots similar percentages from different ranges it means every player in the league will follow this trend? I don’t think so. That’s why I said I’d like to see the individual differences, as in which players are helped by including 3-9 ft in these numbers and which are hurt by it. That’s what we’re looking at, right? Which players are better compared to other players.

And just because you have numbers, doesn’t mean you can define what “mid-range” is. Does that mean an elbow jumper and a three-pointer from the corner are the same shot if players shoot similar percentages on it? Absolutely not.

Clearly, you’ve put a lot of thought into these statistics, but at some point, you have to draw upon subjective experience and knowledge when interpreting them. I’m sure you’ll disagree, but there’s no way you can convince me that a 3-ft shot is mid-range. No way.

ERock386 - September 26, 2011 reply

I’m sure you’ll disagree, but there’s no way you can convince me that a 3-ft shot is mid-range. No way.

What about a 9 ft shot?

Evanz - September 26, 2011 reply

I get what you’re going for. I’ll just leave it at this- you find 10 people whose opinions on basketball you respect. See how many of them believe that Dwight Howard is a better mid-range shooter than Tim Duncan.

ERock386 - September 26, 2011 reply

shot types

I looked at play-by-play data for 2011. Unfortunately, shot distances are not available, but each shot is roughly classified into the following categories (FG%, % of total shots taken):

Dunk 91.4% 4.9%
Layup 59.9% 22.2%
Tip 48.0% 2.1%
Hook 50.2% 3.2%
Jump 38.6 45.5%
3pt 53.8% 22.2%

Dunks, layups, and tips likely make up the bulk of what Hoopdata considers “rim” shots. Hook shots are probably being included in mid-range (3-9 ft) shots. It’s 3.2% of total shots, but probably a considerably bigger portion of shots taken by PF/C.

I could write some code to take the shot types from the PBP and do a similar analysis to what I’ve done here. Would these categories make sense to you:

Inside: Dunk, Layup, Tip, Hook
Mid-range: Jump
3pt: 3pt

Evanz - September 27, 2011 reply

Yeah, that makes more sense to me.

ERock386 - September 27, 2011 reply

Howard took 281 hook shots last season

Duncan only took 64

Evanz - September 27, 2011 reply

How about bank shots?

tafkasam - September 27, 2011 reply

Yeah, that’s pretty much my point. Players like Howard are, in my opinion, being given credit as great mid-range shooters by this formula despite the fact that he (seemingly) shoots mostly within the 3-5 ft range. Whereas Duncan, who takes more shots away from the basket, is (in a sense) penalized by the inclusion of the 3-9 ft range as a mid-range jumper.

Why is the overall fg% of the 3-9 ft range similar to the other ranges? I don’t really have an explanation. Perhaps too many unskilled big men (see Hayes, Jordan, Chandler, McGee) exclusively shoot in the 3-9 ft range and make up for what more skilled players like Howard do near the basket. I’m not sure.

ERock386 - September 27, 2011 reply

I think I agree with you that hook shots should be considered inside shots. I’ve re-written my code to track this stuff now. More later…

Evanz - September 27, 2011 reply

Duncan shot a higher percentage, but may have been penalized in the equation by undershooting.

Uwe Blog - September 27, 2011 via mobile reply

Cool stuff, as usual.

It’d be interesting to see where age/years-in-the-league factors in over time.

Butterknuckles - September 24, 2011 reply

Great job, Evanz....

This series really confirms how terrible Keith Smart was at utilizing players to maximize their strengths. Perhaps it was a matter of being too nice as opposed to not aware… but I honestly believe we were a 5-10 wins below what we should have been last season. David Lee is a mid-range big man, and I think without the zombie bite he might have ranked even a few spots higher…. he should have been picking and rolling/popping all day with Steph. No shocker that Monta takes a lot of mid-range shots at a low percentage. Seeing as how your previous posts put him as elite around the rim, he needs someone, anyone, to get his head straight. I think MJax has the charisma, but I’m worried he’s gonna be an old school guy who gives limited weight to stats.

warriorsablaze - September 24, 2011 reply

fun read..

curry, real good!
ellis bad, (just better than iggy)
dw bad
lee good!
udoh and beans ??? how come udoh and beans arent on for sheets and giggles?
l

PIRATEWARRIOR - September 25, 2011 reply

I don't think Monta is bad considering not all those guys are starters and some shooting specialists

More like in the middle of the pack, like Sasha V is not a starter , nor is Kirk or Bell .

dubzfan - September 27, 2011 reply

neither*

dubzfan - September 27, 2011 reply

25th out of 34 is not middle of the pack really...

GovernorStephCurry - September 27, 2011 reply

It’s in that below average range. It’s not atrocious, but it is sub middle of the pack. If that’s middle of the pack, the Warriors are middle of the pack.

Reverend_Randy - September 28, 2011 reply

Well this isn't out of all rotation SG's in the NBA

Just top 34, so shooting specialists are in here. If it was just starters he’d be higher, if it was rotating SG’s it wouldn’t look as bad

dubzfan - September 28, 2011 reply

Every player ahead of him plays at least 25 mpg besides Vujacic.

GovernorStephCurry - September 29, 2011 reply

Pretty much everyone ahead of him is a starter or starter-type player.

Reverend_Randy - September 30, 2011 reply

Golden State Of Mind