Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Transfer Rumor: Bolton On Verge of First Signings

Inside the Numbers: Scoring effectively

Ken Pomeroy's diatribe on the uselessness of overall FG percentage as a statistic in the three-point line era got me thinking. Are Big Ten teams doing themselves a favor with their current shot selection? Heeding Pomeroy's advice, I examined a few more meaningful shooting metrics.

First some background on my assumptions. Bo Ryan is one of many coaches who stresses scoring at least one point per possession (PPP). This is considered the break-even point for the average team -- scoring more than 1.00 PPP is desired. To achieve this threshold, the baseline for your shooting percentages should be 50% on 2-point attempts and better than 33% on 3-point attempts because the efficiency of taking 100 shots of each kind would both be around 1 PPP in theory (TPPP)*.

Since effective field goal percentage (eFG%) accounts for the higher value of 3-pointers, comparing a team's eFG% to its 2-point FG% is a simple way to evaluate whether that team is executing its game plan well or if it would be smarter to change its approach. It's no surprise, based on the baselines we just established, that the national average for 3-point shooting percentage is exactly 33% at the moment. So any team shooting more threes than the national average with a lower eFG% than 2P% seems, well ... dumb.

Since Wisconsin and Michigan play tonight, here's a look at them first. The full conference breakdown is after the jump:

Shooting TPPP
Team eFG% 3P% 2P% 3PA/FGA 3Pt 2Pt Status
Michigan 51.5 34.2 51.7 43.8 1.026 1.034 Dumb
Wisconsin 52.2 37.1 49.8 41.2 1.113 0.996 Smart

Star-divide

So let's pick on Michigan. The Wolverines shoot a mediocre 34.2% from outside the arc and a pretty decent 51.7% on their 2-point attempts. But they are effectively shooting only 51.5% because they take so many 3-pointers. Theoretically, it would be better for Michigan to shoot 100 2-pointers (1.034 TPPP) than 100 3-pointers (1.026). Yet the Wolverines insist on taking shots from long distance 43.8% of the time, the 12th-highest rate in the country.

On the other hand, others have joined me in griping about how many 3-pointers the Badgers are taking these days. But there is not much to complain about: Wisconsin is wisely shooting more threes because their 3P% far outweighs their 2P%. But no one in the league appears as "smart" as Northwestern in that regard. Nerds ...

Shooting TPPP
Team eFG% 3P% 2P% 3PA/FGA 3Pt 2Pt Differential (%) Status
Illinois 54.5 42.3 50.6 30.0 1.269 1.012 0.257 (20%) Dumb
Indiana 54.7 38.3 53.4 32.6 1.149 1.068 0.081 (7%) OK
Iowa 48.8 34.0 47.8 29.9 1.020 0.956 0.064 (6%) OK
Michigan 51.5 34.2 51.7 43.8 1.026 1.034 -0.008 (-1%) Dumb
Michigan State 51.6 37.9 48.9 33.6 1.137 0.978 0.159 (14%) OK
Minnesota 51.2 34.0 51.3 30.6 1.020 1.026 -0.006 (-1%) OK
Northwestern 55.9 41.9 51.4 39.0 1.257 1.028 0.229 (18%) Smart
Ohio State 57.4 39.9 56.2 33.0 1.197 1.124 0.073 (6%) OK
Penn State 48.5 32.9 47.9 35.1 0.987 0.958 0.029 (3%) Eek!
Purdue 51.8 38.1 49.1 33.9 1.143 0.982 0.161 (14%) OK
Wisconsin 52.2 37.1 49.8 41.2 1.113 0.996 0.117 (11%) Smart

Yeah, that's right, I called Illinois' approach dumb. The Illini's shot selection could be smarter. I get it, in real life there's a diminishing rate of return on 3-pointers and Illinois would not maintain such a sterling 3P% if it were to jack them up all the time. But a few more here and there might help when you are shooting 'em at a 42.3% clip (1.269 TPPP). Just a thought.

These stats cannot tell the whole story of course, and some of the conclusions are obvious. Poorer shooting teams in general are playing from behind more often, which can account for the higher portion of their shots coming from downtown. Also, I could have taken free throw rate into account since missed field goal attempts do not count when there's a foul. And obviously more fouls are drawn when shooting 2-pointers than 3-pointers. But I didn't worry about that.

The other caveat worth mentioning is that the midrange range jumper is an endangered species in basketball thanks to the 3-point line. So while the national average in 2010 is slightly above our 33% threshold (34.3% = 102.9 TPPP), the average for 2-pointers is well below 50% (47.6% = 95.2 TPPP).

*TPPP = theorectical PPP based on 100 attempts exclusively from 3-point range or exclusively from 2-point range.
Updated table data to include games from 1/4/11.

Comment 4 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

In Monday's press conference

… Bo actually briefly addressed the 2-pointer vs. 3-pointer issue. Sounds like he’s about through addressing it too.

Follow me on Twitter @hoopsmarinara for Wisconsin hoops news, insight and recruiting.

by Phil Mitten on Jan 5, 2011 2:00 PM CST reply actions  

So, via TPPP, Michigan does 0.004 points per possession less while shooting 3s?

Or, to use the metric as it’s intended, for every 100 possessions, exclusively shooting 3 points is 0.4 points less effective for Michigan than exclusively shooting 2s.

How many possessions per game do college basketball games usually feature? Extrapolating that over the course of 18 games (Big ten season), are we talking about a real difference, or a couple of free throws here and there?

I agree, if Michigan’s TPPP is that much greater than the national average, then maybe Beilein would be better off reining in the gunners. On the other hand, if Michigan were to shoot more from inside the arc, I’d guess that the numbers would shift to where the TPPP would favor shooting more threes. I’m not sure that makes sense, and since I’ve only managed to watch two Michigan games to date, it’s not based on anything I’ve really seen myself.

I'm expecting 100% improvement from the Lions this season.

by ahtrap on Jan 5, 2011 3:24 PM CST reply actions  

Michigan's adjusted tempo is 63.7 according to KenPom

So over the course of one game (the “adjustments” are for the avg tempo of the opponents played), the difference is worth a half point. ~9 pts over the Big Ten season. Not sure if that qualifies as a “real difference” to most people, but it could swing a close game or two.

(Also, I had the right numbers for Michigan in the table, but initially put the wrong ones in the text. The .004 you speak of should be .008)

Follow me on Twitter @hoopsmarinara for Wisconsin hoops news, insight and recruiting.

by Phil Mitten on Jan 5, 2011 6:58 PM CST reply actions  

If you figure the -9 over the course of a season as an average, then absolutely, it could matter. Maybe not in a game like tonight, unfortunately (for me, anyway)

I'm expecting 100% improvement from the Lions this season.

by ahtrap on Jan 5, 2011 10:17 PM CST reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the unofficial online tavern of the Wisconsin Badgers. Please seat yourself.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Small
Help the Big 10 represent and beat the SEC!
182084_1735339457966_1072969434_1902860_5148352_n_small
Let's go Womens Hockey!
Clemson-38-va-tech-10_small
Sam Dekker Can't Come Soon Enough

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


EDITORS

Rose_bowl_small Adam Hoge

Finley200x200_small Phil Mitten

Mcbain2_small Chuck Schwartz

331730_2218749040289_1594530234_32368362_792621393_o__1__small Sam Zastrow

CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS

002_small Jake Harris

Wisconsin_small Adam Tupitza

Img_2845_small Louis Bien

Rosebowl_small Nathan Palm