30 points on 30 shots

[kingfish]

Ive seen that happen before but why do people say its a bad thing? You can make 15-30, shoot 50 % which is considered good, but since you took 30 shots to get 30 points its bad? Explain.

[Riot]

Because the guys who are usually taking 30 shots also get to the line a lot. Let's say Kobe gets to the line 7 times, makes 6. So if he scores the other 24 points off 2 pointers, thats 12/30 from the field, which is 40%, not very good. And that's not even factoring in 3's, which make the percentage even worse cause if you made 10 3's, that would be 10/30.

[kingfish]

What? 3's count towards overall FG's.

Edited July 6, 2009 by kingfish

[His Greatness]

Efficiency. 15-30 almost never happens.

[Riot]

What? 3's count towards overall FG's.

I know but if you're taking 30 shots, it takes less 3's to get to 30pts than it does 2's. So you're % is gonna be worse.

[Real Deal]

If you aren't a three-point shooter (ex. Gasol) and you take 20 shots to get 20 points, going 10-20 from the field...and the refs decided to swallow their whistles (or you were just open from 15 feet on every play), that means you were less efficient scoring the ball? Less efficient than someone who shot 9-20 with 11 free throws, 32 points?

 

I definitely don't buy that.

[Multi-Billionaire]

I believe it all lies in the percentage... 45% or above and you're efficient. Below it it's inefficient and usually gets the treatment of sitting next to your coach on the bench.

 

^Real, any player who makes a trip to the charity stripe is going to be more effective any day than the player who doesn't. Free throw is when the clock stops, you add points to your team, and you make things happen when the going gets tough/ stagnant offensively for your team/ individually.

[Real Deal]

Real, any player who makes a trip to the charity stripe is going to be more effective any day than the player who doesn't. Free throw is when the clock stops, you add points to your team, and you make things happen when the going gets tough/ stagnant offensively for your team/ individually.

So that player isn't efficient when the referees decide he's not efficient?

 

Getting to the foul line isn't always a good thing. Ask Ben Wallace and Shaq.

 

Stopping the clock and giving your team room to breathe does the same for the opposition.

 

In the NBA, efficiency is simply converting. When you convert on a higher percentage of shots...that's efficiency. It shouldn't matter how many shots it takes you to get the points you acquire, just the percentage of shots that convert.

 

Using the free throw logic, players that rarely get to the line can never be efficient, unless they hit 65-70% of their shots.

[His Greatness]

Less shots and more free throws is always more efficient. It's indisputable. Two wide open shots at the line is an infinite times easier than taking a jump shot or finishing in the lane over two defenders. You're making the most out of your possession, and you're progressively putting the other team in foul trouble, which eventually leads to even more free throws.

[Real Deal]

Two wide open shots at the line is an infinite times easier than taking a jump shot or finishing in the lane over two defenders.

So that must be why coaches use the Hack-a-Shaq. It is much easier for Shaq to make his two free throws.

[His Greatness]

So that must be why coaches use the Hack-a-Shaq. It is much easier for Shaq to make his two free throws.

Yes, pick the biggest aberration to make a rebuttal.

 

In Shaq's case, he's so efficient anyways it almost doesn't matter with him, but his ability to draw fouls is still very valuable.

[Real Deal]

Yes, pick the biggest aberration to make a rebuttal.

 

In Shaq's case, he's so efficient anyways it almost doesn't matter with him, but his ability to draw fouls is still very valuable.

Ben Wallace. Antoine Walker. Brendan Haywood. Josh Smith, Andrew Bogut, Tyson Chandler, Andris Biedrins, Desmond Mason, Kenyon Martin, Kendrick Perkins, Reggie Evans, Bruce Bowen, Anderson Varejao, Lamar Odom...there are plenty of players who I'd rather see take a jumper or a layup/dunk attempt over two players.

 

Doesn't matter. If a player of mine can shoot 20 shots to get 24 points, which would still be a so-so game in some of your eyes, I'd be excited seeing a 12/20 shooting display show up in the statsheet.

 

But it's a poor game, I guess.

[His Greatness]

Ben Wallace. Antoine Walker. Brendan Haywood. Josh Smith, Andrew Bogut, Tyson Chandler, Andris Biedrins, Desmond Mason, Kenyon Martin, Kendrick Perkins, Reggie Evans, Bruce Bowen, Anderson Varejao, Lamar Odom...there are plenty of players who I'd rather see take a jumper or a layup/dunk attempt over two players.

 

Doesn't matter. If a player of mine can shoot 20 shots to get 24 points, which would still be a so-so game in some of your eyes, I'd be excited seeing a 12/20 shooting display show up in the statsheet.

 

But it's a poor game, I guess.

The average FT% for the NBA hovers around 75%.

 

I'm not saying a 12-20 performance is poor. I'm saying that, at any rate, getting to the stripe, is generally more efficient.

[alcstarheel]

But you can get to the stripe 20 times, make only 11 of those frees, and still look like you're efficient.

 

So if you go 12/20 from the field (all inside the arc) and 12/20 from the line, you have 36 points on 20 shots. Sure it's "efficient" from a purely shots/points ratio, but when you bring in 60% from the line it is never good, especially when 20 frees would be all or most of your team's frees on a given night.

 

I think you look at is as so...if you are making about 50% of your shots, it doesn't matter how many times you shoot from the field, and it should only matter how many times you shoot from the free throw line if it was a detriment to your team. If you only go 3-4 from the line, that's not a downturn for your team.

 

---

FG	FGA	FG%	PTS	Date		Shots/Point	FT	FTA	FT%
12	39	0.308	29	11/3/1997	1.344827586	4	6	0.667
18	38	0.474	49	11/21/1997	0.775510204	13	19	0.684
17	33	0.515	44	1/9/1998	0.75		9	10	0.9
13	31	0.419	32	1/10/1998	0.96875		6	10	0.6
17	37	0.459	40	2/4/1998	0.925		5	6	0.833
17	33	0.515	42	3/8/1998	0.785714286	7	9	0.778
17	30	0.567	37	3/10/1998	0.810810811	2	2	1
18	31	0.581	40	4/5/1998	0.775		4	4	1

 

Jordan's last year with the Bulls, shooting over 30 shots.

 

He did it four times. Four times he was over 50%. Four times he was under 50%.

 

Of the four times over, he was even more efficient because of his frees, shooting 100% twice. Even though it was under five frees attempted each time, he didn't hurt his efficiency by shooting a bad free throw percentage.

 

He actually shot more frees overall on his four games of less than 50% shooting compared to the four games over. Not to mention his free throw percentage in those games was also not very good.

[alcstarheel]

FG	FGA	FG%	PTS	Date		Shots/Point	FT	FTA	FT%
12	30	0.4	29	11/14/2008	1.034482759	3	4	0.75
14	31	0.452	41	12/20/2008	0.756097561	11	11	1
13	32	0.406	33	1/13/2009	0.96969697	6	9	0.667
19	31	0.613	61	2/2/2009	0.508196721	20	20	1
14	33	0.424	37	2/11/2009	0.891891892	8	8	1
13	30	0.433	39	2/20/2009	0.769230769	12	12	1
10	31	0.323	29	2/27/2009	1.068965517	9	12	0.75
18	38	0.474	49	3/1/2009	0.775510204	10	10	1

 

In Kobe's case this past year, his 30 shot games only yielded one game over 50% shooting. But from the perspective of some of you, 3 of those 7 times he was less than 50% from the field were still efficient only because he shot many frees and made almost all of them.

 

December 20, 2008 - Shot 45% but scored 1.3 points per shot.

February 20, 2009 - Shot 43% but scored 1.3 points per shot.

March 1, 2009 - Shot 47% but scored 1.3 points per shot.

 

Now if we look at the game on February 2nd. If he shot no frees that game (for example), he would have only scored 41 points, which would have been 1.3 points per shot. that would look the same as his 45%, 43%, and 47% game, even though he shot 61% from the field in that game.

 

So you can see how it can be skewed depending on the free throws taken and missed.

[His Greatness]

By whose perspective? There is no disagreement here. I just think that less shots and more free throws generally equates to more efficiency — is that even disputable?

[alcstarheel]

What I saw in here was someone say that if you only shoot and make a few frees while shooting 30 shots that you are less efficient than when you shoot and make more frees. I don't see it that way. If you shoot 30 shots and make 15 of them, I don't think it matters how many times you go to the free throw line because you can't always control it. I see the number of frees only detracting from your overall efficiency if you are shooting a multitude of them at a bad percentage.

 

If you were to take 30 shots, make 15, and only shoot 2-2 from the line, I don't see that any worse than shooting 30 shots, making 15, and shooting 10-10 from the line. From a purely statistical perspective, you've scored more points on the same amount of shots in the latter situation compared to the former, but when you look at it in a basketball sense, you made the most of your free throw opportunities in either case, and I don't think either should be downplayed.

[His Greatness]

What I saw in here was someone say that if you only shoot and make a few frees while shooting 30 shots that you are less efficient than when you shoot and make more frees. I don't see it that way. If you shoot 30 shots and make 15 of them, I don't think it matters how many times you go to the free throw line because you can't always control it. I see the number of frees only detracting from your overall efficiency if you are shooting a multitude of them at a bad percentage.

Getting to the line is more efficient. If you take 30 shots and you net at least half, that's still an outstanding shooting performance, but free throws are the pillars of efficiency. They're just easier shots. Of course the raw free throws numbers alone don't ascertain a player's efficiency for that game, but it's generally pretty telling.

 

If you were to take 30 shots, make 15, and only shoot 2-2 from the line, I don't see that any worse than shooting 30 shots, making 15, and shooting 10-10 from the line. From a purely statistical perspective, you've scored more points on the same amount of shots in the latter situation compared to the former, but when you look at it in a basketball sense, you made the most of your free throw opportunities in either case, and I don't think either should be downplayed.

It shouldn't, but that wasn't being debated.

[alcstarheel]

It shouldn't, but that wasn't being debated.

This first reply to this thread basically said that 30 points on 30 shots is bad because you should also be getting to the line. Read Kingfish's question:

 

Ive seen that happen before but why do people say its a bad thing? You can make 15-30, shoot 50 % which is considered good, but since you took 30 shots to get 30 points its bad? Explain.

And read how Riot replied:

 

Because the guys who are usually taking 30 shots also get to the line a lot.

 

Kingfish was asking why it's bad to score 30 points on 30 shots if you still shoot 50%. Riot's response was because you should also get to the line. That's what I was debating.

[Riot]

It's not that you should get to the line, it's that you will get to the line if you're taking 30 shots. I don't know if I could find one player that took 30 shots and didn't shoot a single free throw.

 

15/30 is definitely efficient if it happens, it just doesn't happen too often, if at all.

[Flight]

Riot has a great point, it's virtually impossible to take 30 shots and no free throws. Unless you're playing streetball, it just doesn't happen.

 

 

 

 

If you take 10 shots and go 5 for 10, and score 10 points, that's efficient because you're contributing while not being a main option, where a player taking 30 shots is really probably pressing and shooting too much, while still shooting the same percentage it isn't as good IMO.

[alcstarheel]

Why not? If one player takes all their team's shots, and shoots 50%, why would that be bad? That would actually be great for the team as on average teams are shooting under 50%.

 

Teams are taking about 80 field goals a game. Shooting 30 times won't be half of your team's shots, but shooting that many times at a 50% clip would not be bad for your team.

 

If you take 10 shots and go 5 for 10, and score 10 points, that's efficient because you're contributing while not being a main option, where a player taking 30 shots is really probably pressing and shooting too much, while still shooting the same percentage it isn't as good IMO.

So we'll just apply it further. You are saying that if you shoot 7 for 10 it's okay, 70%, good percentage. But if you shoot 21 for 30, that's not okay because you're taking too many shots? It's the same percentage in both situations. Both percentages are above average for a team as a whole.

 

---

 

1.21.09, Cavs vs. Portland, LeBron goes 14-30 with only 4 free throws. Would you call that game not as effective because he was 3-4 from the line?

[Flight]

That's what I'm saying, if teams are taking 80 field goals a game, and you make half, 40 of 80, and don't get fouled or shoot any 3s, then you just scored 80 points by taking all of your team's shots. Great job, you just had a poor team performance, because one guy made 50% of his shots.

 

 

 

 

 

I think that if you get 30 shots off in a game, you're expected to get to the line at least 10 times, and not only that but get into a flow after a while and make more than half of your shots. If you take 10, then making half is fine because you didn't have as much time to get comfortable. If you take 10 shots, you aren't expected to take a lot of free throws, and not having any would be somewhat normal.

 

It's just not a good output for someone to take 30 shots, and only have 30 points. You have to score more points than you take shots in a game, and if someone gets off 30 shots, they need to have a good share of the team's points (more than 40 I'd say). If that's your star that can only make half, you're in trouble on any given night.

[alcstarheel]

This is what you're missing. Just because the box score shows you with 30 shots doesn't mean you only took up 30 possessions of your team's offense. If you are shooting frees, most of those are going to be on your drawing shooting fouls. So if you drew 7 shooting fouls resulting in 14 frees, that's a total of 37 possessions that you have from other players on the team. So if you get to the lines 10 times and make 10 of them, great. You maximized your possessions. If you get to the line 10 times and make 5, that's not good because you didn't maximize your possessions.

 

If you don't shoot any frees in a 30 shot game, but still make 50% of those field goals, you maximized all the possessions that you took up. That's why I'm saying if you are over 50% it shouldn't matter how many frees you take as long as you make the most of them.

 

Now, if you're shooting considerably lower than 50% from the field on 30 shots, then yes, you better get to the line to make up for it. You have to make up for the possessions when you weren't converting.

[Flight]

I guess that's true, but this whole "30 shots, 30 points" thing is hard to understand, because there's the version where you get freethrows, and the version where it's a perfect 15 of 30, no fouls.

 

 

If you take 30 shots and go to the line for 14 free throws, then 30 points looks even worse, even though you got to the line. If you take 30 shots, and go 15 of 30, it's still not great IMO, but statistically alright.

 

 

 

I think we're both kind of going in circles here, I don't understand how this would work since there's 2 versions of arguments in this thread, and neither one appear to make sense with the 30 shots, 14 free throws, and 30 points thing.