Haani and shooting

[CAGASS24]

As a baseline - check out this article

http://collegebasketball.nbcsports.com/2013/11/11/the-chase-for-180-a-quest-to-find-college-basketballs-best-shooter/

or check out the work over at 180shooter.com

Basically, having a combined FG%, FT% and 3Pt% of 180 is a pretty unequivocal threshold for labeling somone an "elite" shooter  (assuming of course, some floor contribution requirements).  In some seasons, there are no 'true' 180 shooters in the NCAAs.  In the NBA, there may be only a handful to reach the mark for a season. 

Haani this year is at just under 174 - and this is with 'only' an 81.1 percent FT% (usually people reaching 180 have a 90 percent FT% and some will say that is a requirement to be a true 180 shooter).  This is remarkable.  This kid is having a fabulous season.  On top of that, he's basically taken over Sandy's minutes AND become our go-to Defender.  And the 3Pt% is no aberration as he's now up to 2.2 attempts per game.  And the FG% does include most shots being at the rim, but being a Freshman in the BEast and getting 50% to drop is crazy.  I am so freaking thrilled he will be a Golden Eagle for years to come.  Henry is awesome and somehow outperformed even his lofty expectations, but Haani is no slouch and can also be considered a 'program changer'.   Next closest on the team is JJJ at 163 (perhaps even more of a shocker) - after that's its down into the mid 150s

[Jay Bee]

JjJ's eFG% is 56.2% -- Haany is at 55.8%.. Luke at 61.2%

PS - FG% is a pukey stat

[CAGASS24]

oh I love the eFG% stat and what it can reveal - I also like looking at this trifecta as another way of highlighting specific skills

[forgetful]

Funny thing is most FG% stats get it wrong.  Jay Bee always comments about eFG% and that FTs don't matter.  The eFG% is a flawed metric in that manner.  If FT's didn't matter the Hack a Shaq method would be irrelevant.  Here is a reason why.

For the sake of the discussion below I'm going to assume that a game involves 3 possessions.  For simplicity, we'll go with an average points per possession of 1.1, so average would be 3.3 total points.

The possessions go as follows, 1 2-pt shot, 1 3-pt shot and a one and one opportunity. 

Situation 1:  Player makes a 2 pt FG, misses the 3 and misses the front end of 1 and 1. 
Total points: 2
Total eFG%= 50%, Percentage of average points (3.3 being average) 60.6%

Situation 2:  Player makes a 3 pt FG, misses the 2 and misses the front end of 1 and 1. 
Total points: 3
Total eFG%=75%, Percentage of average points:  90.9%

Situation 3:  Player misses the 2 and 3, but makes both FTs
Total points: 2
Total eFG%=0%, Percentage of average points: 60.6%

Situation 4:  Player makes the 2, misses the 3 and makes both FTs.
Total points: 4
Total eFG%=50%, Percentage of average points: 121%

The above shows the flaw in eFG% in that it discounts FTs entirely.  Missed FTs result in a lost possession, where a missed front end hurts the most.

The eFG% metric relies on the fact that most players shoot on average sufficiently well to mitigate the effect of FT% on outcomes.  This is across a large average though, not on a game by game/situational basis.  It also then neglects players that are anomalous (i.e. Shaq) or players expected to go to the line in crucial situations (i.e. PGs that can't shoot).

Bottom line is FTs matter and because of that eFG% although useful in emphasizing the effect of 3 pt FG%, is still flawed.

[brandx]

Funny thing is most FG% stats get it wrong.  Jay Bee always comments about eFG% and that FTs don't matter.  The eFG% is a flawed metric in that manner.  If FT's didn't matter the Hack a Shaq method would be irrelevant.  Here is a reason why.

For the sake of the discussion below I'm going to assume that a game involves 3 possessions.  For simplicity, we'll go with an average points per possession of 1.1, so average would be 3.3 total points.

The possessions go as follows, 1 2-pt shot, 1 3-pt shot and a one and one opportunity. 

Situation 1:  Player makes a 2 pt FG, misses the 3 and misses the front end of 1 and 1. 
Total points: 2
Total eFG%= 50%, Percentage of average points (3.3 being average) 60.6%

Situation 2:  Player makes a 3 pt FG, misses the 2 and misses the front end of 1 and 1. 
Total points: 3
Total eFG%=75%, Percentage of average points:  90.9%

Situation 3:  Player misses the 2 and 3, but makes both FTs
Total points: 2
Total eFG%=0%, Percentage of average points: 60.6%

Situation 4:  Player makes the 2, misses the 3 and makes both FTs.
Total points: 4
Total eFG%=50%, Percentage of average points: 121%

The above shows the flaw in eFG% in that it discounts FTs entirely.  Missed FTs result in a lost possession, where a missed front end hurts the most.

The eFG% metric relies on the fact that most players shoot on average sufficiently well to mitigate the effect of FT% on outcomes.  This is across a large average though, not on a game by game/situational basis.  It also then neglects players that are anomalous (i.e. Shaq) or players expected to go to the line in crucial situations (i.e. PGs that can't shoot).

Bottom line is FTs matter and because of that eFG% although useful in emphasizing the effect of 3 pt FG%, is still flawed.

Good post.

It is amazing that they don't count all field goal attempts for this stat. That is its failing. FT% may not matter (even though it really does), but points do.

In an extreme example, if a guy took 6 shots in a game and was fouled on 5 of them and missed the other and made 8/10 FTs, he would end up with 8 pts. while attempting only 6 shots. But, his eFG would be 0%.

As far as anyone saying FT% doesn't matter, I say that taking your best defensive player off the floor in a close game, especially in the playoffs - solely because of his FT% - has a huge effect on the outcome of a game.

[BM1090]

Good post.

It is amazing that they don't count all field goal attempts for this stat. That is its failing. FT% may not matter (even though it really does), but points do.

In an extreme example, if a guy took 6 shots in a game and was fouled on 5 of them and missed the other and made 8/10 FTs, he would end up with 8 pts. while attempting only 6 shots. But, his eFG would be 0%.

As far as anyone saying FT% doesn't matter, I say that taking your best defensive player off the floor in a close game, especially in the playoffs - solely because of his FT% - has a huge effect on the outcome of a game.

I actually agree with both of you in this regard, but the middle paragraph is inaccurate. If you're fouled on a shot the FGA does not count. So in that example would actually only have attempted one shot. So he'd actually have 8 points on 1 shot attempt.

[brandx]

I actually agree with both of you in this regard, but the middle paragraph is inaccurate. If you're fouled on a shot the FGA does not count. So in that example would actually only have attempted one shot. So he'd actually have 8 points on 1 shot attempt.

Thanks, Eagle. That was actually the point I was trying to make. It doesn't count in the book as an attempt, but that doesn't change the fact that he attempted to make a basket.

If a player takes the ball and drives to the basket and puts up a layup, that is an attempt. Just because he is fouled does not change the fact that he attempted to make a basket and score. So if he still scores 2 points on the attempt to make a basket (via 2 FTs) it should be reflected in his efficiency percentage.

[Jay Bee]

Funny thing is most FG% stats get it wrong.  Jay Bee always comments about eFG% and that FTs don't matter.  The eFG% is a flawed metric in that manner.  If FT's didn't matter the Hack a Shaq method would be irrelevant.  Here is a reason why.

For the sake of the discussion below I'm going to assume that a game involves 3 possessions.  For simplicity, we'll go with an average points per possession of 1.1, so average would be 3.3 total points.

The possessions go as follows, 1 2-pt shot, 1 3-pt shot and a one and one opportunity. 

Situation 1:  Player makes a 2 pt FG, misses the 3 and misses the front end of 1 and 1. 
Total points: 2
Total eFG%= 50%, Percentage of average points (3.3 being average) 60.6%

Situation 2:  Player makes a 3 pt FG, misses the 2 and misses the front end of 1 and 1. 
Total points: 3
Total eFG%=75%, Percentage of average points:  90.9%

Situation 3:  Player misses the 2 and 3, but makes both FTs
Total points: 2
Total eFG%=0%, Percentage of average points: 60.6%

Situation 4:  Player makes the 2, misses the 3 and makes both FTs.
Total points: 4
Total eFG%=50%, Percentage of average points: 121%

The above shows the flaw in eFG% in that it discounts FTs entirely.  Missed FTs result in a lost possession, where a missed front end hurts the most.

The eFG% metric relies on the fact that most players shoot on average sufficiently well to mitigate the effect of FT% on outcomes.  This is across a large average though, not on a game by game/situational basis.  It also then neglects players that are anomalous (i.e. Shaq) or players expected to go to the line in crucial situations (i.e. PGs that can't shoot).

Bottom line is FTs matter and because of that eFG% although useful in emphasizing the effect of 3 pt FG%, is still flawed.

Completely disagree on eFG%. Compared to FG%, there is no comparison. It's about FIELD GOAL SHOOTING. FG% is horrid. eFG% is great. 2FG%, 3FG%, and 3FGA/2FGA all broken down is preferred.

FT's are a different animal. If you want them added in, use TS%.

" If FT's didn't matter the Hack a Shaq method would be irrelevant."

How relevant is it? See it a lot in college basketball? Lol.. let's get real. Even a 60% FT shooter going to line is going to produce a better-than-average ppp.

[Jay Bee]

oh I love the eFG% stat and what it can reveal - I also like looking at this trifecta as another way of highlighting specific skills

But does it? Misses the weighting entirely. Let me think of a couple of guys who might produce goofy results... and I suppose the question is what defines an "elite" shooter? I think of someone who can shoot difficult (i.e., 3-point) shots.

OK.. Thomas Bryant.. looks like he's about 178%. Is he an "elite" shooter?!

Guy we faced in game 1.. Evan Bradds... 179.. incredible conversion rate on his shots.. elite shooter though?

Freshman from Wofford.. Fletcher Magee.. is at 190. well, OK, maybe.

J.B. Bauer ‏@JBBauer612  12 Sep 2014
Fletcher Magee is a great pickup for Wofford. Will make his mark there.

Forgot to keep up with how he was doing this season.. wow. 121 Ortg, 23%shots, 63.5% eFG%, 47% 2FG, 48% 3FG, 94% FT... not bad for a frosh.

[bilsu]

Haanif has made the second most free throws for a freshmen in MU history. 2nd only to Ellenson, which means this years freshmen class has the two top freshmen in free throws made as a freshmen in MU history. The former leader was Duane Wilson, so this team has the top three freshmen free throws shooters based on number made.

[THRILLHO]

Haanif has made the second most free throws for a freshmen in MU history. 2nd only to Ellenson, which means this years freshmen class has the two top freshmen in free throws made as a freshmen in MU history. The former leader was Duane Wilson, so this team has the top three freshmen free throws shooters based on number made.

Probably has a lot to do with the rule changes/points of emphasis that took effect last year (or 2 years ago?).

[Jay Bee]

Probably has a lot to do with the rule changes/points of emphasis that took effect last year (or 2 years ago?).

Not a huge difference.. it's more to do with (a) few players getting as many minutes as the three [due to avg PT and games played when comparing to many years ago] and (b) specific player style [relatively high FD/40 & FT rates compared to peers]. 

(Not that FT's matter.)

[CAGASS24]

I won't look at all the examples but for bradds I noticed he is 5 of 8 all season for threes - like my original post said - you'd need some minimum attempt type of criteria considered to get he best reflection- and if you stick to the requirement that the guy be a 90 percent ft shooter he's nowhere near that- so no- I don't think he'd be a l elite shooter - I didn't want this to be a big debate about which stats are best - they are all different and utilized uniquely - let's focus on the point haani is having a great season anyway you slice it and to see him shooting the ball so well is a nice suprise

[Jay Bee]

Jinxed it, ai''nal?

0/3 2FG
0/3 3FG

[forgetful]

Completely disagree on eFG%. Compared to FG%, there is no comparison. It's about FIELD GOAL SHOOTING. FG% is horrid. eFG% is great. 2FG%, 3FG%, and 3FGA/2FGA all broken down is preferred.

FT's are a different animal. If you want them added in, use TS%.

" If FT's didn't matter the Hack a Shaq method would be irrelevant."

How relevant is it? See it a lot in college basketball? Lol.. let's get real. Even a 60% FT shooter going to line is going to produce a better-than-average ppp.

I think we agree more than disagree.  I agree that eFG% is infinitely better than FG%. 

Using TS% is not acceptable.  The formula is just gibberish. 

And you are right that in college we don't see Hack a Shaq as much, because the PPP is low.  That doesn't mean FT's and FT% don't matter though.  They do.  They should be being considered.

My argument is more at the lines of reasoning you and others use to emphasize that FTs don't matter.  More of a pet peeve.  I understand the logic and reasoning, but the logic and reasoning don't apply to actual situations, they only are reasonable across the global averages.

[Jay Bee]

I think we agree more than disagree.  I agree that eFG% is infinitely better than FG%.

Agree.

Using TS% is not acceptable.  The formula is just gibberish. 

Agreed.

And you are right that in college we don't see Hack a Shaq as much, because the PPP is low. 

Disagree. It's because there aren't such offensively efficient players on the low post, combined with being piss poor free throw shooters that the math actually makes it reasonable to consider fouling when the ball is delivered to the low post.

That doesn't mean FT's and FT% don't matter though.  They do.  They should be being considered.

My free throws don't matter talk is hyperbole. It's born out of a free throw percentage discussion. And I'll make clear what I am saying: free throw percentage is faaaaar down the list of concerns for a team when talking about a team's performance in a season or even in a game.

My argument is more at the lines of reasoning you and others use to emphasize that FTs don't matter.  More of a pet peeve.  I understand the logic and reasoning, but the logic and reasoning don't apply to actual situations, they only are reasonable across the global averages.

Not global, but yes. Even game averages. Obviously, if you're at the line with 1 second less, down by 2, and shooting 2 free throws.. who you have at the line matters.

But "we only shot 62% from the line!!" in a game is stupid and idiotic.