Will The Warriors Shoot More Efficiently This Season?
Hello GSoM community, I have a new warriors blog over at Golden Stat Hoops which I thought you might enjoy, its a Warriors blog with more of a statistical emphasis. Here's the first post from it, let me know what you think/if you disagree with the ideas. Thanks.
When looking at a boxscore, the first thing most people probably notice is who scored the most points. It's only natural, the team who scores more wins, and thus players who score the most points are usually valued very highly. But the question that should be raised and is not asked often enough is did they score efficiently, that is could they maximize their scoring potential? Since I'm a baseball fan first and foremost, I especially like Kevin Pelton's analogy of scoring efficiency to on base percentage, arguably the most important stat in the game yet undervalued for a very, very long time.
So how can we expect the Warriors to fare in scoring efficiency this year? First, a few definitions and stats that will help shed some light on efficiency.
FG%, 3P%
These are the stats your dad grew up with and the ones you typically find in newspapers and fantasy leagues. They are easily deduced from the box scores, FG% is simply the number of field goals made (FGM) divided by the number of field goals attempted (FGA), while 3P% is the same for 3 point shots (3PM/3PA). The Warriors ranked 12th in the NBA with a 45.9 FG% last year, just 0.2 above the league average. Their 3P% was much worse at 34.8, good for 26th place and 1.4% behind the league average of 36.2%.
Now your first though may be "wow, the Warriors can't have been very efficient look how poorly they shot from behind the 3 point line." This is actually looking at things the wrong way and demonstrates why straight FG% and 3P% are not the best evaluators of efficiency. It doesn't take into account at all that the Warriors had a lot more 3PA as an overall amount of their FGA (29.5% to be exact, tops in the league), but more importantly it doesn't account for the fact that a 3PM is worth 1.5 times a 2PM in terms of points. Which brings us to
eFG%
Effective Field Goal Percentage (eFG%) is a stat which was popularized by Warrior legend Rick Barry in his Pro Basketball Bible series of books. The formula is simply eFG% = (FGM + .5*3PM)/FGA. Looks just like FG% except it takes into account the extra point a 3PM is relative to a 2PM.
This is especially relevant concerning the Warriors, who we all know shoot a lot of 3s. The Warriors 51.1 eFG% was good for 8th in the league last year, 4 spots higher than their FG% ranking and a whopping 18 spots above their 3P%. So while the warriors may not shoot 3 pointer at a high percentage relative to the league, their volume more than makes up for it with regards to efficiency. But there's one more shooting stat which more fully encompasses efficiency
TS%
True Shooting Percentage (TS%) incorporates free throws into the equation, TS% = Pts/(2*(FGA + (.44*FTA))). Notice the 2 multipliers in the equation, the 2 is to get the TS% to be closer to FG% (its less confusing to have Andris Biedrins 07-08 TS% to be 63.7 as opposed to 127.4), and the .44 multiplier is because of And-1s, technicals, flagrant fouls, clear-path fouls, or three shots after a foul attempt on a three point attempt, if there were none of these occurences than the multiplier would be exactly .5 since you would always get two free throws per a possession.
Notice that TS% doesn't care how you got your points per se (there's no 3PM, FTM in the formula), it only cares how many you got on how many shots. It also rewards players who get to the free throw line a lot (provided you make them). Say on one possession you got fouled in the act of shooting and missed your shot, but make both free throws. Your TS% for that possession would be 2/(2*(0+(.44x2))) = 2/1.76 =1.14, as opposed to the 1.00 it would be if you had just made the jump shot without being fouled.
I couldn't find league wide sortable TS% by team (if someone knows where I could that would be great), so I just calculated the Warriors TS% by hand and it turned out to be 55.5. I'm not sure where that ranks compared to other teams, but it is 1.5 percentage points higher than the league average team TS% of 54.0.
Enough with the mumbo jumbo, just tell me how the Warriors will do this year
Well, its hard to say. While I don't think individual shooting percentages fluctuate wildly from season to season, the Warriors are going to be a very young team (young players have less historical data to work with and can improve more dramatically than older ones) with a new nucleus of players (will Corey Maggette be able to sustain his excellent numbers from last year in a new system?), so trying to project their shooting efficiency this year from last year's data may not work that well. That being said, let's look at individuals' numbers last year (apologies for the formatting, new to Wordpress and struggled to find a better way to make a table):
Warriors 2007-2008 Shooting
Player TS% eFG%
Monta Ellis 0.580 0.536
Baron Davis 0.523 0.483
Andris Biedrins 0.637 0.626
Al Harrington 0.547 0.517
Stephen Jackson 0.536 0.481
Kelenna Azubuike 0.534 0.505
Mickael Pietrus 0.549 0.525
Matt Barnes 0.510 0.483
Brandan Wright 0.583 0.554
Austin Croshere 0.573 0.526
C.J. Watson 0.519 0.470
New Player
Corey Maggette 0.595 0.497
Ronny Turiaf 0.539 0.474
Marcus Williams 0.499 0.471
The first thing to note from the numbers is that my man-love for Andris Biedrins is well grounded in the stats (and not just the hair gel). Now I know part of the reason Biedrins posts such high percentages is because his whole game is putbacks and dunks for the most part, but still he should have gotten much more than the 7.3% of the teams FGA. Shouldn't let that kind of efficiency go to waste.
Speaking of waste, Baron Davis did a bit too much of it with regards to this shot selection. His reputation as a chucker is well grounded in these stats, as his TS% was the worst on the team of the regulars (and his eFG% was no great shakes either), exacerbated by the fact that he took just under 300 more field goal attempts (20.6% overall) than anyone else on the team. From a pure shooting efficiency standpoint replacing, if you replaced Davis's percentages with Maggette's the team would see a dramatic improvement in TS%. Of course the game doesn't work that you can just change the numbers like that, but I still think Maggette would be an improvement over Davis with regards to shooting.
This year's team also won't feature Mikael Pietrus or Matt Barnes. Pietrus was surprisingly efficient by these numbers, probably because he mostly shot 3's all day (and made a lot of them). Barnes was very similar to Pietrus in the shot selection, except the part about making the 3 pointers, so his numbers are much worse. But both were still significantly better than Marcus Williams, who I assume would get a lot of their minutes. Williams still doesn't have much of a track record, but maybe there's a reason for that as his numbers from last year are terrible. Let's hope they don't expect him to do much shooting.
The man who should be doing most of the shooting (hopefully) is Monta Ellis. His efficiency was incredible last year, especially when you consider the volume (16.6% of the team's FGA) of shots he took. By now I'm sure all Warriors fans have heard about Ellis's injury. Personally I don't care what happened so much as how (hopefully not at all) it will affect his game upon returning (whenever that may be). If Ellis can return and be the player they expected when they signed him to that huge $66 million extension, I'm sure all will be forgotten.
Wait a minute, you still haven't answered my question. Will you get to the point already?
Sounds like I should be a Vice Presidential Candidate instead of a Warrior blogger, eh? Alright, here's what I think will happen. Assuming:
- Corey Maggette gets the bulk of Davis's playing time and shots from last year
- Monta Ellis can return some time reasonable (say before the end of 2008?) at a level close to his old form
- Steven Jackson gets some of the time at point instead of Marcus Williams like Coach Don Nelson is considering and as a result distributes a bit more than chucks like he usually does
- The team gets Andris Biedrins the freaking ball more asadjkhfajwhfajksdhf 63.7/62.6 C'mon!
- The other guys stay close to their levels last year
Then I think this team will definitely see their shooting efficiency rise, the TS% especially since Maggette is such a large (7.2%) improvement over Davis. If that happens and the Warriors keep the Pace they ran at last year, expect to see their scoring rise, which is hard to imagine considering it was already a league leading 111 last season. It would be fun to watch, that's for sure.
This FanPost is a submission from a member of the mighty Golden State of Mind community. While we're all here to throw up that W, these words do not necessarily reflect the views of the GSoM Crew. Still, chances are the preceding post is Unstoppable Baby!
6 recs |
17 comments
Comments
Lol...
Great read… hoping there would be a poll at the end! (Those are fun)
by Tony.psd on Oct 13, 2008 9:36 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Added one, thanks for the tip
Can't get enough of the Oakland A's or Golden State Warriors? Visit Oaktown Awesomer's and Golden Stat Hoops
by iamawesomer on Oct 13, 2008 10:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
didn't read it all
just to answer the question: with baron gone efficency may go up. with jax still here it won’t go way up
by AJC3317 on Oct 13, 2008 5:18 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I have always looked at players FG% as much as the PPG
but just recently got into the TS. I wish more fans would take these kind of stats into account when praising players. For example: I absolutely love Allen Iverson, don’t get me wrong (let’s face it, the dude is sick), but his high PPG has always been bolstered by the fact that he shoots more than rambo in some obscure foreign jungle. His TS is nothing to write home about, although it has gone considerably up since moving to Denver while his total FGA/Game has gone down. In fact, his TS% 03’-04’ was 47.8% even though he was still scoring over 26 ppg. Of course, AI adds a lot more to a team than just scoring, but he may not be quite as good as everyone trumps him to be.
'That's something we do...thirteen hits and not score'-Terrence Long
by DyeLongJustice on Oct 13, 2008 9:31 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Iverson is not as good as many trump him up to be. As weird as it may seem to many, he is better used as complementary role player, with that role primarily being to shoot the ball. “Building” around him presents something of a problem and requires a very specific type of team to be anything better than mediocre.
by jae on Oct 14, 2008 10:37 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Iverson has always had the problem of not having a "second fiddle"
Who had Philly put him with? The best team he ever had was basically a team built to defend while letting him do his thing on offense. Eric Snow? Aaron McKie? You serious? They tried Webber, but he was too old and busted. He was DWade before DWade was DWade. The main difference being Shaq. If you look at what he’s done since he was A) Asked to be more of a distributor and then B) Traded to Denver where there’s actually other talent…. you see a much prettier picture from a TS% or PER or whatever. Finally, I love all the people trashing Iverson NOW. Who exactly is touting him as awesome and amazing NOW. Give it up already. He’s not as bad as you make him out to be and there is no “everyone” who trumps him up, it’s just ESPN showing highlights saying “OMG WTF DYST?!?!”. I’m sure there are people out there saying the same things about Monta, “He’s not as good as everyone trumps him up to be, he can’t play defense, shoot the three, or handle the ball. He can’t be a PG, so he’s always going to be a liability for his team. He sucks!”
I hate Chris Rock, Eddie Murphy, Dave Chappelle, and Russel Peters because they make fun of white people like me. They also make fun of other kinds of people, which hurts me deep down because my ancestry is so mixed that I don't know what my official "race" is... so I get offended for all races!
by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 15, 2008 6:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You called it exactly. The best team he was on was a defensive giant. They had above average defenders and rebounders playing well as a unit. They were not superb as individuals, but they were very, very deep. The problem with Iverson “doing his thing” is that his thing involves missing a bunch of shots. If you get so many of your points this way, you will not win regularly unless you a) keep the score down overall and b) get a bunch of rebounds to make sure you capitalize on second chance shots. Without solid defense, they became mediocre to worse and Philly did not suffer from losing him. They were able to replace his production from the collection of second fiddles and actually improved when swapping his PT out for Andre Miller.
Iverson has played better since moving to Denver where there’s more talent around him. He’s a better player now. His season in Denver was perhaps his very best as he shot more efficiently.
I’m not sure “how bad” you think I’m making him out to be. I am not arguing that he’s garbage, that he should be relegated to seeing if the D-leaguers will let him carry their bags. But he’s not the elite difference maker, not a legitimate choice for most valuable player in the league either. He’s good, but there are many, many players who are better if your criteria for being better involves improving your team’s chances for winning games.
by jae on Oct 15, 2008 9:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It was more a response to Dye...
The Sixers didn’t lose a beat because they had AI2 coming into his own and they got an underrated Andre Miller.
Denver has struggled because they’re not deep and they’ve had injury problems up front (Nene has played 81 games in the last 3 seasons, and K-Mart isn’t much better at 129). Between AI, Melo, Nene, K-Mart, and Camby they’re over the cap already (64M for this year, so ~58M last year). They started Anthony Carter over 70 games and Linus Kleiza and Yakoub Diawara more than 10 games last year. It’s bad management (again) more than anything else. Their financial situation was so bad that they traded a 9pt/13reb/3blk guy who put in 79 games last year for a second rounder just to take 10M off the books.
To say that AI isn’t one of the top players in the league because he hasn’t been able to lead a shallow, injury prone Nuggets team or any of the teams run by Billy King to the promised land (he did it once, but nobody was beating the Lakers at that time) is like saying you’re a terrible investor because you’ve had trouble earning a positive return in 2008.
I’m not saying he’s the best thing since sliced bread, but he’s far better than you’re giving him credit. When it comes to guards, there are only a handful I’d rather have. Kobe, Nash, and LeBron >AI>>> TMac, Joe Johnson, Mike Redd.
I hate Chris Rock, Eddie Murphy, Dave Chappelle, and Russel Peters because they make fun of white people like me. They also make fun of other kinds of people, which hurts me deep down because my ancestry is so mixed that I don't know what my official "race" is... so I get offended for all races!
by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 16, 2008 7:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
actually, I like Iverson better NOW
because he shoots less. I was sick of his 76er days where he’d put up lines of 7-21 field goal shooting on the night. He’s a good player, no doubt, but anyone can have a high PPG average if the only thing you do is shoot all night long because some of your shots are bound to go in now matter how bad you are (even Mikki Moore scores SOME for the Kings). PPG sometimes overrates players because all they do is jack up shots, but if you’re not making a high percentage of them, you’re not really helping your team. One last thing I forgot to mention was that Iverson was legit back in the day too. I mean, he made it to the NBA finals in ‘01. He is an above average player, but I would venture to say that he wasn’t at Chris Paul status, but rather slightly below it.
'That's something we do...thirteen hits and not score'-Terrence Long
by DyeLongJustice on Oct 16, 2008 2:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So....
In his Philly days he was somewhere between Mikki Moore and Chris Paul? OK. I’ll give that to you. He’s STILL better than “above average” in his 30s as the smallest guy on the floor while scoring most of his points in the paint.
I hate Chris Rock, Eddie Murphy, Dave Chappelle, and Russel Peters because they make fun of white people like me. They also make fun of other kinds of people, which hurts me deep down because my ancestry is so mixed that I don't know what my official "race" is... so I get offended for all races!
by Dubs fan in Boston on Oct 17, 2008 2:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm saying he's in the top 15 in the league...just not in the Top 5
'That's something we do...thirteen hits and not score'-Terrence Long
by DyeLongJustice on Oct 18, 2008 9:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
probably depends on
who plays point guard,
how long monta is out,
what biedrins shooting % is, assuming he is creating his own shot more vs. finishing a created shot.
if AB dips to say TS% of .6, it offsets Magg’s vs Baron. since historically, Pietrus’s TS% > Turiaf’s and Barnes’s has been about = Turiaf’s, whereas Marcus Williams’ is crap.
although it may not matter much now that BD and his low turnover rate is gone – we might see a spike in turnovers back to pre-BD #‘s for guys like Harrington. i’m sure once Monta comes back, we’ll see a spike in his turnover rate (assuming his TO rate as the strongside playmaker has historically been higher than his rate as a weakside).
Marcus Williams has a TO rate (TO per possession btw) that crushes MP’s so… yeah
i’m not an insider but i can see it right now so…
by the evil monkey on Oct 14, 2008 11:51 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Assists need to be a major consideration in this discussion
While Baron jacked up way too many questionable shots, he did increase our TS and ability to score by delivering quality passes and drawing defenders.
Regardless of how well anyone else shoots this year, we are going to need to replace that type of productivity a bit in order to overcome his absence completely.
I would be really interested in seeing the TS and eFG for teams with All Star point guards like New Orleans and Utah compared to other teams or league average (if someone else does the work!)
by warriorsvictim on Oct 14, 2008 11:55 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Lazy bum. ;-)
Top 10 NBA teams ranked by eFG%, 2007-08
1. Suns .551
2. Magic .537
3. Jazz .528
4. Lakers .525
5. Celtics .522
6. Hornets .512
7. Raptors .511
8. Warriors .511
9. Nuggets .510
10. Spurs .504
——-
League Average .497
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2008.html
Hm, looks suspiciously like a list of the best teams in the league, whether they have an elite PG (NO, PHO, UTA, e.g) or not (BOS, ORL, LAL, e.g.) How much studs like CP3, BD, and Deron improved on what theyir teams would have shot without them is left an exercise for the reader. I don’t think there’s much question that they helped out quite a bit.
Note to iamawesomer: this is a pretty cool diary — I always like a good stats chat, and of course I gobble up any and all props for Biedrins, our absurdly maligned Top 10 NBA Center. A couple suggestions:
1. Edit your prose a bit — I appreciate your patience in spelling stuff out, but sometimes in the interest of brevity you gotta assume your audience has a basic understanding of what you’re talking about.
2. Check out the blogs of some of the really advanced stats nerds — say, Nate Silver’s Baseball Prospectus or Dave Berri’s Wages of Wins. Half the time I don’t know what they’re rattling on about, but they’re both great examples of how much you can do with numbers when you really get into them.
Don't mess with ^^^^ !!
by Sleepy Freud on Oct 14, 2008 2:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Berri’s analyses indicate that assists do measure to some degree the effect of raising teammates’ FG, however, the effect is not overwhelming. In general, what a player does is largely independent of his teammates. Guys who shoot well do so whether or not they’re playing with top PGs and guys who shoot poorly don’t tend to raise their FG substantially when teamed with a top PG.
by jae on Oct 14, 2008 3:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for the advice
Yeah its hard finding the middle ground sometime between how much people know what a stat means and what needs an explanation.
I am a BP subscriber and daily reader, as well as most of the other big baseball sites (The Hardball Times, The Book’s Blog) and I’ve just discovered a few months ago on a poker forum that people were doing this type of thing with basketball, I had no idea. I also picked up Dean Oliver’s Basketball on Paper, which I highly recommend to anyone interested in learning where this may be headed in basketball, as its quite fascinating, at least to stat nerds like myself.
Can't get enough of the Oakland A's or Golden State Warriors? Visit Oaktown Awesomer's and Golden Stat Hoops
by iamawesomer on Oct 15, 2008 10:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 


















