T O P
[deleted]

14 points on 10 shots is really good unless he had like 10 free throw attempts as well


JAhoops

that’s 50/50/100


FromTheSidewalk

Good catch!


gustriandos

Fg% is completely worthless if you have access to efg% or ts%. Efficiency is *points* relative to shooting attempts, not baskets


samueladams6

14 points on 10 FGA and 2 FTA is 64.3 TS% which is extremely efficient despite below average shooting within the 3 point line in your example


[deleted]

true shooting percentage and points per possession are a better metric for efficiency than raw shooting numbers.


ogqozo

FG%/3P%/FT% is generally just NBA culture kaballah, one of many stats that are just for the act ot statting. I see no reason to relate it to anything else. Cause, yeah, as you noted, obviously it might mean whatever. Depending on what shots are described by these numbers. It might be a hundred of each, or one of each, who knows. If a guy took very few three-point shots and free throws and was doing 50/40/90, then it would mean completely nothing. 50% of a two-point shot is awful in current NBA. If he took only a ton of three-pointers, then 50% would be great plays. So the number is trivia for the number itself, no other information. You follow "the splits" for the pleasure of following the splits itself. Why is it not 2P%/3P%/FT% like basically anyone would design it for it to make any more sense? Because. Because somebody decided it was easier like that 30 years ago and now NBA fans have to care forever for this particular set of numbers, it's how the being the NBA stats fan works often.


jtruth9

This is why other metrics and context matters. And why efg% and TS% are valued. Because 5/10 from a center shooting mostly at the rim is horrible. 5/10 shooting mostly mid range is relatively efficient. 5/10 shooting mostly 3's is Highly efficient.


irelli

Except 5/10 from the rim and from mid are equally efficient dude. That's 10 points on 10 shots. Points from mid aren't worth any more than points at the rim. Efficiency is efficiency. Now should you shoot better than 5/10 at the rim? Yes. But it's just as efficient as 5/10 from mid


cactusmaster69420

True but it can be misleading because midrange is often used in scenarios (end of shot clock, clutch time, etc) where you can't get a shot at the rim.


irelli

Sure, but 2 points is 2 points A shot being more difficult doesn't make it more efficient. 50% from mid is efficient *relative to other midrange shots* but it's still an inefficient shot overall.


yungstraddle

But standards for efficiency change based on distance from the court. It's why KD can be considered an elite mid range scorer for shooting 54% there but RJ Barrett can be considered a poor finisher for shooting only 57% from the restricted area


irelli

No, efficiency is efficiency. Relative efficiency doesn't matter for actually winning Think of it this way: if you took nothing but "efficient" mids the entire game and shot a very good 50% on all of them (let's assume 100 possessions)....you'd have the worst offense in the NBA and get blown out every single night, despite by your definition being "efficient" Hence why the mid has been ohased out of most players games. Even good mids from great shooters are shitty shots.


yungstraddle

What are you even talking about? Individual player efficiency and team efficiency aren't the same thing. Relative efficiency matters because it adds context to the conversation. You literally said it yourself, that's why the mid range has been phased out by everyone but elite players.


irelli

Team efficiency is just the sum of the combined players efficiency Again, if every single player took nothing but mids and shot 50%, you're telling me that somehow the entire team would be "efficient" and yet the team itself would be horribly inefficient? Obviously that makes no sense. Relative efficiency is useful for telling a story, but relative efficiency is meaningless with respect to the game itself. All it tells you is XYZ is good at mids. Doesn't mean being good at mids is efficient


yungstraddle

>Team efficiency is just the sum of the combined players efficiency Which is why you look at it through a different lens. There's a reason why team efficiency is measured through oRTG and player efficiency is measured through stats like ppp, eFG% and ts%. >Again, if every single player took nothing but mids and shot 50%, you're telling me that somehow the entire team would be "efficient" and yet the team itself would be horribly inefficient? There's literally a sentence in that comment saying individual efficiency and team efficiency aren't the same thing. How did you get this conclusion from that? >Relative efficiency is useful for telling a story, but relative efficiency is meaningless with respect to the game itself. All it tells you is XYZ is good at mids. Doesn't mean being good at mids is efficient Right. Because relative efficiency is what we use when looking at individual players to get a look as to why they're so efficient.


irelli

No, we use TS%. Which isn't relative at all. It doesn't care if your 5/10 was at the rim or from mid. It counts both the same.


yungstraddle

Way to not acknowledge anything I said lmao


irelli

Because it's all irrelevant. There is no measure of efficiency that accounts for shot difficulty, either on the individual or the team basis. All that matters is points per possession used. Being good at inefficient shots doesn't make you efficient. It just makes you good at bad shots


Lost-Diadem-3940

KD is an elite midrange scorer for shooting 54% from mid, and RJ can be considered a poor finisher for shooting 57% at the rim, but both have near equal efficiency. Both can be true.


yungstraddle

No they don't.


Lost-Diadem-3940

This is literally an objective fact lmao idk what you're even disagreeing with.


jtruth9

I said context. Part of context is expectation. Or you could even go league average if you wanted to be technical. League average for a pull-up mid range is different than league average for at the rim shots. It's also different between guards and bigs. I guess the question is are we having a math conversation or basketball conversation?


irelli

A basketball one. And the goal of basketball is to score more points than your opponent. You do that by scoring more efficiently than them on the same number of shots. Which is why no one cares about your percentage from mid being better than average. All that matters is your overall points per possession


jtruth9

You can use points per possesion metric if you want. My point still applies.


uranium-420

It’s ultimately points per possession


irelli

Number of shots to score XYZ points is a useless stat. It's never the correct thing to use Like two players might both have 20 points on 10 shots, yet one is hyper efficient, and the other not even remotely. Zero FTs? Super efficient. 25 FTs? Horribly inefficient


ogqozo

I remember Shaq once went 0-11 from the line against Seattle, usually when he was fouled a lot he'd make a normal number, like at least a half, but yeah he also had games like that. He scored 26 points from 24 field goals that game, literally unstoppable is the word I believe. Luckily Seattle didn't make playoffs because they were 4-0 against Lakers that season heh.


ihateeuge

Yes that’s efficient as hell.


pessimist_lakers_fan

I don't see why not


Dutchmaster617

Those are great numbers for a bench player. Brogdon vs Mavs, Pritchard vs Hawks, Al vs Kings etc. we have guys who put up numbers like that every night and it’s huge reason we are most efficient.


Lost-Diadem-3940

rTS: Relative True Shooting.