iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
David Berri

GET UPDATES FROM David Berri
 

Should You Be an NBA Star for Taking Shots or Making Shots?

Posted: 03/15/2012 5:46 pm

Here are some numbers to ponder:

  • This season (as of Wednesday night) Monta Ellis averages 21.9 points per game, a mark that ranks 9th in the NBA.
  • Carmelo Anthony (again, as of Wednesday night) averages 21.3 points per game, a mark that ranks 12th in the NBA (of all players who played at least 30 games so far this season).
  • Last season Ellis ranked 8th in the NBA with a per-game average of 24.1; while Melo averaged 25.6 points per game (a mark that ranked 3rd).

What do all those numbers tell us? If you follow the conventional basketball wisdom, these numbers scream: "Ellis and Melo are great!!" And when a team acquires great players, the team must get better. In other words, the Milwaukee Bucks -- who just acquired Ellis -- must now be better. And we all know that the Knicks have been amazing since Melo came to town.

Okay, unfortunately -- and contrary to this conventional wisdom -- if we delve just a tiny bit (and I mean tiny bit) deeper, we see that there is a reason to think maybe Ellis and Melo ain't so great.

Let's start with something obvious. How many points a player scores is determined by the following two factors (and I really hope this is obvious):

  • how many shots a player takes

  • how efficiently the player shoots (or how often those shots actually go in the basket)

When we look at Monta Ellis, we see that this season he has taken about seven more field goals per 48 minutes than an average shooting guard. So Ellis is "good" at "taking" shots (and "good" and "taking" are in quotes for a reason).

But again, scoring isn't just about shot attempts. Shooting efficiency also matters. And when we consider true shooting percentage (a measure of efficiency that takes into account two-point, three-point, and free throw shots), we see that Ellis in 2011-12 has a mark of 51.6% while an average shooting guard has a mark of 54.3%. So when we look at efficiency, Ellis isn't "good".

Okay, so what matters? Should we consider Ellis "good" because he "takes" shots? Or is it a problem that these shots -- relative to an average player at his position -- are often missing the mark?

Well, let's think about some additional numbers. On Tuesday night -- without Ellis (or Stephen Curry) in the line-up - the Warriors hoisted 91 field goal attempts against the Sacramento Kings. About a month earlier -- with Ellis and Curry in the line-up -- the Warriors attempted 90 field goal attempts against the same Kings. In other words, with and without Ellis (and Curry) the Warriors took about the same number of shots.

And this is not a story confined to just two games. Consider the case of Carmelo Anthony. Melo is another player who tends to be above average with respect to taking shots but is not always above average in terms of shooting efficiency. And just like we saw with Ellis, it doesn't seem like his teams need help "taking" shots.

Melo began the 2010-11 season with the Nuggets. But after 57 games, the Nuggets sent him to the Knicks. With Anthony, Denver averaged 80 field goal attempts per game. Without him Denver averaged 82.2 field goal attempts per game. A similar pattern has been seen this year with the Knicks. With Anthony in the line-up the Knicks have averaged 81.2 field goal attempts per game. Without him, the Knicks are averaging 81.6 field goal attempts per game.

One can see essentially the same story when we look at LeBron James and Allen Iverson (two more players who have historically been "good" at "taking" shots). When LeBron left the Cavaliers the team's shots from the field actually increased (77.9 field goal attempts with LeBron in 2009-10, 81.1 without him in 2010-11). And when Allen Iverson left the Sixers -- the first time - the team's shots from the field stayed at about 78 per game.

If such anecdotes are unconvincing, in Stumbling on Wins we reported a study of how a player's shot attempts related to the shot attempts of their teammates. What we found was that a player's field goal attempts were almost entirely "taken" from his teammates. In other words -- as the above anecdotes indicate -- players do not "create" shots. Shots are merely "taken"; and by "taken" we mean "taken" from the player's teammates.

Given all this, should we be impressed by scoring totals? In the case of LeBron, one should be impressed. Like Ellis, Anthony, and Iverson, LeBron is above average with respect to taking shots. But James is also well above average with respect to getting his shots to go in the basket. And getting those shots to go in the basket is what leads to wins (along with getting rebounds, accumulating assists, etc...). So far this season, LeBron's numbers have been worth more than twelve wins to the Miami Heat (for those who are interested, here is how the number of wins LeBron produces is calculated). No other player in the NBA has produced more this season.

In contrast, Ellis -- despite all that scoring -- only produced about 1.1 wins for the Warriors this season. And as of Wednesday night, Melo has also only produced about one win for the Knicks this season.

Again, wins in the NBA are not about taking shots. Win are about getting shots to go in the basket. And because scoring totals are determined by how many shots a player takes from his teammates, when people focus on scoring totals they can easily get fooled.

This isn't just true for the casual fans. Academic studies for decades have noted how scoring totals dominate player evaluation in the NBA (with respect to free agent salaries, awards, etc...). Despite the problems Anthony and Ellis have with getting the ball to go in the basket, people in the NBA still think these players are immensely valuable.

But when we keep things simple, we see that both players are not really "stars". For teams to win they need to get the ball to go in the basket (and really, shouldn't this be obvious?). This was illustrated by the Knicks on Wednesday night. After a long losing streak, the Knicks blew the Blazers off the floor. How did this happen? One big key was the ability of the Knicks to get the ball to actually go through the net. Melo hit 50% of his shots from the field (including an amazing 50% from beyond the arc). Amare Stoudemire was even better, hitting 80% of his shots from the field; while Steve Novak and J.R. Smith hit 13 of 24 of their three-point shots. If the Knicks could get their shots to go in the basket like this every night, then just about anyone could probably coach this team to a championship.

Unfortunately for the Knicks, this one game was not consistent with the historical performance of these players. In other words, when we look at what both Melo and Stoudemire have done this season, we don't see these players hitting shots at this rate. So although both players have scored at an above average rate this season, neither has accumulated these point totals because they have generally been "good" at getting shots to go in the basket. And that means that neither player has actually been "good" this season.

So next time you hear an "expert" tell you how good a player is because he averages so many points per game, ask yourself: Is this because that player just "takes" shots from his teammates (like Ellis, Anthony, and Iverson)? Or is this because that player gets his shots to go in the basket (like LeBron)? And more importantly, why isn't the "expert" making this distinction?

 
 
 
Here are some numbers to ponder: This season (as of Wednesday night) Monta Ellis averages 21.9 points per game, a mark that ranks 9th in the NBA. Carmelo Anthony (again, as of Wednesday night) averag...
Here are some numbers to ponder: This season (as of Wednesday night) Monta Ellis averages 21.9 points per game, a mark that ranks 9th in the NBA. Carmelo Anthony (again, as of Wednesday night) averag...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 29
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
parlimentMike
It's not un-American to investigate 4 crimes.
04:56 AM on 03/20/2012
One must also consider the defensive attention given players. As an extreme example, if Paul Pierce and Rajon Rondo both shot 55%, Pierce would be doing a far better job.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:52 AM on 03/21/2012
So LeBron still comes out on top? Hm.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
GeorgeGee
07:19 PM on 03/16/2012
The true basketball artist is the player who takes good shots, makes a high perectage, gets to the line, makes his free throws and has the capacity to get his teamates involved with court vision and unselfishness.This is what makes LeBron so special. It doesn't hurt that he also hits the boards hard and plays defense like a mad man. As maligned as he is for the lack of his late second heroics, the man is truly a remarkable player, like no other.

These same traits were shared by Larry Bird and Magic Johnson and why they are both considered in the top 10 players ever to play the game. Tim Duncan, The Big O, Steve Nash, and Jerry West are other legends who bring the same to the table.

Then there are the superstars who made their mark with their ability to put it up relentlessly, effectively and artistically. MJ, Kobe, Dominique and Dr J's of the world. They managed to be legends even though they were "me first" players. They never really were the utmost team players, never too concerned with getting others involved, never really aggressive on the boards. They won because of their individual scoring greatness, strong wills, their teamates were willing to defer to them no questions asked, and were willing to do all the dirty work.

I acknowledge the greatness of the final group. They won and big! I might be in the minority, but I'd still rather see the first group play.
10:59 AM on 03/16/2012
Maybe we need a basketball version of "moneyball". This worship of points per game sounds like the worship of the speed of a fastball.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wallyone
10:39 AM on 03/16/2012
Percent made is huge, but one has to consider the possessions in which the first or second options are closed off and the shot clock is winding down and an offensive player has to create a decent shot in a one on one situation. Only then is a Melo or Kobe or James an indispensable asset. Also, when they have to heave one up vs the clock their percentage made will go down.
11:37 AM on 03/16/2012
A common fallacy by basketball fans. How many times do you think a bad shot from Kobe with the shot clock at 2 happens? Not enough to justify your reasoning there.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:57 AM on 03/21/2012
More often than you think. We remember the memorable made shots at buzzers, but forget all the misses that occur. Kobe shoots 43%. There is no evidence that his percentage increases or decreases in crunch time, we've just seen him hit a number of three shots at buzzers to win meaningful games and associate him with winning games in crunch time, but he's blown up in many games with his black mamba act and gutted the team late, jacking up ill advised shots.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:06 AM on 03/16/2012
Lin has proven that Melo is a burden rather than an asset to his team.
10:59 AM on 03/16/2012
The fact that the Knicks coach resigned due to the pressure to coddle Melo supports your point.
07:02 AM on 03/16/2012
If you have two players who are shooting 50% for the game and one player has only taken two shots and the other has taken 30, which player do you want with the ball in his hands at the end of the game for the last possession to win it. A player like Monta has the ability to create shots that some players cannot, if he has shot 30 times throughout the game he has a better understanding of what the defense is giving him or who/where he can exploit them. He may have a better pulse on how he is feeling, if his threeball is going in or if he has to take it to the basket. Some players have an ability to create shots in a number of ways and take over a ball game and Monta is one of them. Yes there are downsides to Monta, I feel his decision making at the end of games is sometimes questionable. He may get you a steal here or there in the final seconds but he may also commit a foul. Monta is a star, there is no question about that. He will need to be surrounded by more talent to get anywhere but that can be said for any star in the league.
11:01 AM on 03/16/2012
The writer points out that without the 'stars', the same number of shots were being made. So this whole 'creating shots' thing may not always be true.
02:17 PM on 03/16/2012
Stars aren't even defined by statistics, it has to do with the fans relationship with the player, the player's highlights (what kinds of plays they make), the player's personality, the timing of his success (i.e. being clutch means something).

It is valuable for a player like Monta to have an ability to create an open shot or better shot for themselves. With the defense clamping down at the end of the game, Kobe can create. MJ did it. There are many players who cannot. Sure there are other ways of developing a play for a final shot but having someone on your team who can create their own space to get a good shot off is valuable. Melo and Monta have a lesser version of what Kobe or MJ can do.

Volume shooting isnt necessarily a good thing, I agree, but don't try to say Monta is costing his team a chance to win by shooting too much. Monta (.465) has a better career FG% than Melo (.456) and Kobe Bryant (.454). Monta shot 60.2% (106-176 FG) during the month of February 2008, becoming just the ninth guard in NBA history to shoot above 60.0% from the field during a single month. He shot 53% from the field in 2007-2008. Maybe he is past his prime but he is certainly a star in my eyes, I love watching him play.
11:38 AM on 03/16/2012
Unfortunately, everything you have stated here is based entirely off subjective measures.
noahmarder
Exposing the regressive lies, one by one
12:04 AM on 03/16/2012
Lebron's numbers would come down if the refs didn't give him so many calls, but I guess he still adds value for his team if refs consistently give him calls. Overall, I agree with the article.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
GeorgeGee
06:57 PM on 03/16/2012
If your 6'8" tall, fast, have a quick first step and you aren't afraid to go to the basket relentlessly against players of all sizes.... you're going to get fouled. Alot! Don't blame the refs for the fact that LeBron gets to the line alot. Credit LeBron for having the physical tools and skills to get there.

Your point is off the mark.
noahmarder
Exposing the regressive lies, one by one
10:16 PM on 03/16/2012
If a defender makes minimal contact with Lebron, he gets called for a foul. If he made the same contact with a no-name reserve, or a "villain" like Kobe Bryant, there's a good chance he wouldn't get called. Lebron also gets away with ridiculous travels and carries, and refs won't call fouls on him if he is already in foul trouble. Not that it would affect the stats in the article, but the refs don't give him technicals either when they would for similar behavior by other players.

The NBA is all about money, and it has decided that propping up King James to near God status is good for business. David Stern is a greedy, power hungry disgrace, and the game of basketball suffers as a result.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TheRationalLeft
10:57 PM on 03/15/2012
I don't always agree with Dave Berri, but he is on target with this one. The problem with his analysis is that it presumes that stats are static. According to his logic and analysis, Amar'e should be great, because his FG % was awesome in Suns, playing with Nash. But now in NY, he is averaging at 47%. Not so good.
So he didn't bring his stats from Suns with him to NY.
11:38 AM on 03/16/2012
Amar'e's field goal percentage WAS great last year in NY.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MassWG
10:29 PM on 03/15/2012
What about defense?

The article happens to remind me of a great quote:

“You miss 100% of the shots you don't take.”
Wayne Gretzky
photo
Vintage59
Seeking tickets to First Class
10:08 PM on 03/15/2012
Well, I saw Monta play with the Warriors and he just didn't have anybody to pass to.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realpolitic
Proud member of the reality-based community!
10:02 PM on 03/15/2012
Shooting the basketball and teamwork is a lost art. Whole NBA teams used to shoot 50% and now it is very rare for even an individual player to shoot 50%.  What did Allen Iverson shot about 40%, but of course he took a lot of tough shots driving to the middle against much bigger, stronger guys?
10:54 PM on 03/16/2012
You're failing to take the 3 point shot into account. You should be measuring by effective field goal percentage, not regular field goal percentage.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realpolitic
Proud member of the reality-based community!
11:00 PM on 03/16/2012
Well, that's a very good point because even the best three point shooters shot around 40% from there, i believe. Yeah, it would change things.
09:29 PM on 03/15/2012
I'm not a huge basketball fan but I would have thought that at a strategic level you would want to hold the ball for as long as you could to limit the other teams opportunity to score. Assuming they are doing the same thing you are going to definitely have a limited number of shots as a team. So the efficiency is by far the most important parameter, closely followed by anything to do with retaining possession or taking possession.

I surely love that strategy in sport!! Bring on summer for the cricket!!
photo
GunnisonVern
my bio is not micro
09:25 PM on 03/15/2012
Mr Berri I could not agree more with your assessment. Now explain Tim Tebows success last year with the Broncos.
photo
BigBearcatBill
This is the real Bearcat - a Binturong
07:57 PM on 03/15/2012
In the mind of a Ball Hog, the shot is most important whether made or not, making it is just a bonus and don't forget the team always needs him to shoot more than anybody else.
06:22 PM on 03/15/2012
The article in a sentence: Field-goal and free-throw percentage matter, and matter more so when a team plays at a slow offensive pace, which limits total possessions and shots.

Not sure why this convoluted explanation was needed to get out that simple idea.
06:55 PM on 03/16/2012
Shott3r,

Your pace argument isn't actually as true as you think. Most teams take roughly the same number of shots per game and the shot difference between teams isn't that great either.