A Sea Of Blue: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:



Around SBN: MLB Hot Stove: blogging the rumors, trades, signings Bar-right-arrows



Lies, Damn Lies, and Field Goal Percentage

(This is my small protest against the use of field goal percentage in newspaper boxscores everywhere. Another measure is needed.)

Believe it was Mark Twain who coined the phrase,"Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics". After watching Jodie Meeks' fantastic shooting performance in the first half of the Pikeville exhibition, it brought back the memory of an old peeve.
We've had the three point basket for many years. Field goal percentage is still used to measure shooting performance or offensive efficiency although it is misleading,sometimes wildly misleading.
As an example, consider a hypothetical game(unlikely but possible)between,we'll call them,the Red Team and the Blue Team. In this game the Red Team had 60 field goal attempts making 30, all two point goals, for 50.0%. The Blue Team also had 60 attempts making 20, all three point goals, for 33.3%.
Current wisdom says the Red Team shot well(50.0%) while the Blue Team shot poorly(33.3%). How can this be ??? Both teams shot 60 times and achieved 60 points.
The problem is FG% is an unweighted average and treats all field goals the same,not taking into account that three is greater than two. What is needed is a weighted average to account for this.
Weighted Field Goal Percentage(WFG%)1.5 times three point goals +two point goals, all of that divided by field goal attempts(FGA). Take that result and multiply by 100%.

WFG%(1.5 X 3FG+ 2FG)/FGA then multiply the result by 100%

In the hypothetical game the Red Team had no three pointers, therefore WFG% is the same as FG%, or 50.0%.
The Blue Team made no two pointers so,

WFG%(1.5 X 20/60)X 100% 50.0%

We have an WFG% of 50.0% for both teams as it should be since both teams achieved the same nunber of points with the same number of shots.
Using WFG% Jodie Meeks' shooting is even more remarkable. In the first half he made 8 out of 10 FGA with 7 three pointers. His WFG% is,

WFG%(1.5 X 7+ 1)/10 multiplying the result by 100%=115.0%
Yes, WFG% may be more than 100%, and this shows the power of the three point basket. Meeks did something no two point shooter can do, he scored 23 points with 10 shots. A two point shooter making all ten shots could only score 20!!
Years ago Travis Ford had several games where he had a WFG% greater than 100%. He was a great offensive performer. In the NCAA tournament,his Senior year, UK was blowing teams out until they met Michigan in the Final Four. They shut him down and won in overtime.

A quick way to figure WFG% is to add half the number of 3 pointers made to total field goal attempts and then calculate like doing FG%. For Meeks first half shooting,

WFG%(3.5+ 8)/10 then multiply result by 100%
WFG%=115.0%

 

0 recs | Comment 8 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Interesting...
...and it reminds me of the debate surrounding batting average versus OPS or OBP. That a .300 hitter with a low OBP doesn't help you nearly as much as a guy hitting .260 who gets on base, etc.

Good diary...

The Online home of Big Blue Nation ...

by JL Blue on Nov 3, 2007 10:28 PM EDT   0 recs

Thanks Blue
Yeah that baseball stuff is interesting. Bill James (think that's his name) has done some fascinating stuff rating players throughout baseball history and comparing them.

by 58Fan on Nov 8, 2007 1:26 AM EST to parent up   0 recs

To me
It's just a statistic, and it doesn't matter. You can say who shot better all you want, it won't change the victor.
| ride | the | lightning |

by paralyzer on Nov 3, 2007 11:45 PM EDT   0 recs

Yes, but...
...the thinking would be the better the shooter, the more likely victory becomes. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

The Online home of Big Blue Nation ...

by JL Blue on Nov 4, 2007 12:11 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

True, but..
..I never said they weren't; all I said was that a statistic of who is the better shooter doesn't matter: the win/loss is all that matters.
| ride | the | lightning |

by paralyzer on Nov 4, 2007 1:06 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I agree....
the Win/Loss is what matters but I also agree that every time you are watching a game Stats are put up on the screen and often times FG% is used as a comparison to why one team is better than the other.  I can see where a Weighted FG% could be useful and definately interesting to see.
C....A....T....S CATS CATS CATS

by MartinGolf9 on Nov 5, 2007 1:24 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

I prefer the ...
offensive efficiency measure, which is points/100 possessions.

That's what Ken Pomeroy uses, and I think it is a very good general predictor of how good a team is offensively.

It's counterpart, defensive efficiency, is the other side of that equation.

by Truzenzuzex on Nov 5, 2007 5:15 PM EST to parent up   0 recs

Yes
I like Pomeroy's efficiency measure. It's better than using a weighted field goal percentage. The advantage to using WFG% is that it's similar to FG%, something people are used to.
Believe it's even better for football if you count a posession as any kick received (punts, kickoffs), then both offensive and defensive efficiency can be measured. If a team fumbles a punt or kickoff, or loses an onside kick, those would also count as a posession. Kicking teams would count as part of the defense, while receiving teams would count as part of the offense.
Rating a defense on points given up per game is misleading since high scoring teams give the ball back many more times. On average the more posessions a team has the more points they will score. Ball control teams often only appear to have better defenses since they give the ball back fewer times.

by 58Fan on Nov 8, 2007 1:22 AM EST   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

An exciting user-driven SBNation blog, by and for fans of the Kentucky Wildcats.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Small
A Favor To Ask (For Erik Daniels' Mom)
Bball0_small
Patterson now projected as a lottery pick
Small
Looking for Game Film from 1986-1987
Small
Where have all the "players" gone?
Small
Looking toward January . . . a change in the lineup Part II
Dj_small
UK vs. U of L/Momentum Shifter
Small
Turnover Improvement: Real or Mirage?
Small
Dan Issel Was Not UK's First Choice In 1966
Img_1595_small
Opinions on whether Slone might transfer
Small
Florida Atlantic Breakdown

Post_icon New FanPost All FanPosts Carrot-mini


Managing Editor

Tru_small Truzenzuzex

Editor

Small Ken Howlett

ad

Site Meter