Wolves' Shooting by Location
by Madison Dan on Jul 30, 2011 10:04 PM CDT
Email
PrintAs you may have read in my previous FanPost, the 2010-11 Wolves were 29th in the league in 2-point shooting percentage. My statistical models estimated that this cost them 9.3 wins relative to an average 2-point shooting team. Of the factors I examined, it was the single largest contributor to the Wolves being a 17-win team. I subsequently found some interesting data on hoopdata.com that breaks down shooting performance by location. How do each of the Wolves do? Answers after the jump...
The statistics are broken down into five categories: shots at the rim, 3-9 feet, 10-15 feet, 16-23 feet, and three-pointers. The table below shows two sets of stats for the Wolves and the average NBA team. The share of shots by location is shown in the top panel; and the shooting percentage by location is shown in the bottom panel. Two stories emerge for the Wolves:
- The Wolves take a relatively low share of their shots at-the-rim and a relatively high share of shots from 3-9 feet. As you can see from the shooting percentages in the bottom panel, this is a very bad tradeoff.
- The Wolves have a below-average shooting percentage from everywhere on the floor except 3-point land.
Overall, the Wolves shot 0.459 from the field versus 0.487 for the average NBA team. It may be interesting to calculate what the Wolves' shooting percentage would have been if they'd had the NBA average shot selection (i.e., the NBA-average shares of shots by location). Replacing the Wolves' location shares with the average NBA location shares would have increased the Wolves' shooting percentage to 0.469. In other words, only about a third of the difference between the NBA-average shooting percentage and the Wolves' shooting percentage is due to the Wolves having a comparatively bad shot selection (across locations, I can't say anything about shot selection within locations).
Therefore, the bigger problem is that the Wolves shot poorly from all 2-point locations, and not that the Wolves didn't get the rim enough.
Now I'll show how each of the Wolves did relative to the average player at his position. I included all players who played 20 or more games and at least 10 minutes per game in the average calculation. (The averages don't improve much if I tighten those up to better reflect starters' numbers.)
Point guards are shown in the table below. The two-panel format is the same as I used above. The first thing that jumps out to me is that none of them could get to the rim at an average rate or perform at an average rate once they got there. The second thing I noticed is that Luke's a good outside shooter, which may make us all feel a little better when he pulls up for a jumper.
Next I turn to wings. I deliberately combined SG and SF because so many of our players don't seem to fit nicely into one category. There are a lot of things to notice here:
- Ellington is amazingly awful from 9 feet in, but shoots reasonably well from further out.
- Corey's gone, so I won't dwell on him.
- Wes shot 78.2 percent of his shots from 16 feet out or more (!) and he was a below-average shooter from everywhere on the court.
- Webster is pretty good at getting to the rim, but he doesn't have a very good shooting percentage once he gets there.
- Hayward was extended just before the lockout. Sigh.
- Beasley's shooting percentages by location are OK (not great), but he needs to improve his shot selection. Sound familiar?
At power forward, things are looking a little better. Both Love and Tolliver do a good job of getting shots at the rim. Love takes advantage of his 3-point shooting by taking a lot of them (for his position). Interestingly, Love's shooting percentage isn't all that great at the rim. His strengths are from 3-9 feet and at 3-pointers. (He also draws a lot of free throws, which helps is TS%.) Also, Tolliver is pretty good.
Now we turn to center. First sit down. Then look at Darko's shot selection. Pek, on the other hand, looks pretty good if this is all that you look at. If he can cut down on turnovers and fouls (a big "if"), he'll be OK.
So what did I learn from this exercise? First, we need to be better at getting to the rim. Second, our shooting isn't very good. There aren't that many instances in which our beloved Wolves shoot better than an average NBA player, controlling for position and location on the floor. This tells me that we may not be very good. I suppose we can hope that improved coaching and a little Rubio magic will set players up for better shots within each zone, and it'll all come up roses. I'll be interested to see how all of you interpret it.
52 comments
|
9 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Good stuff here
A few observations:
- One of Rambis’ great failings was his total disrespect for the 3-point shot. We all know how poorly his team defended it, but it also appears to me that his offense didn’t utilize it enough. Here we had a clear advantage in 3-point shooting accuracy over the rest of the NBA (on average), yet we didn’t seem to exploit enough.
- Michael Beasley is a gifted scorer. He is pretty much at or above the FG% average at every distance on the floor. That is impressive. It’s the inability to draw fouls that is holding him back, but otherwise, he has every tool he needs to be an elite NBA scorer.
- Our “at the rim %” is low considering all of the supposed length and athleticism on this squad. To your point, may be Rubio is the special sauce that turns the tide on this statistic. I looked at Amare Stoudemire’s numbers in NY compared to Phoenix and his FG% numbers pretty much took a drop across the board, especially from the closer distances. Here’s hoping that Rubio can do for our bigs what Nash does for his.
- Wes Johnson is anemic. 13% of his shots at the rim!? What a waste of athleticism.
Good points.
The Stoudemire stuff is particularly interesting. I hope we get a real coach and that Rubio is for real (or at least OK), because I’ll be curious to see whether a lot of these players can improve. We have to hope that Rambis and Flynn were as awful as we think they were, dragging down most of the team with them.
Rambis did know he needed outside shooting, especially in year one. He just didn't know how to get there.
For example, he wouldn’t play the two (now-departed) points together, because Ramon Sessions didn’t offer any shooting and he knew teams would pack the lane on Al Jefferson even more. He wanted Sasha Pavlovic partly for his range, I think, too.
Definitely not a big strength of his, but he did have the idea at least. He knew Love’s shot from deep was an edge.
Well, "shot selection" means more than we're taking it to mean here:
It may be interesting to calculate what the Wolves’ shooting percentage would have been if they’d had the NBA average shot-selection- distribution? (i.e., the NBA-average shares of shots by location).
Does that get closer to the meaning?
I’m still not sure this necessarily follows:
Replacing the Wolves’ location shares with the average NBA location shares would have increased the Wolves’ shooting percentage to 0.469. In other words, only about a third of the difference between the NBA-average shooting percentage and the Wolves’ shooting percentage is due to the Wolves having a comparatively bad shot selection
I’m not sure, but wouldn’t “shot selection” be one of those broad and almost elastic terms, including things like where in the shot clock an attempt happened? I can imagine a team wrongheadedly taking various attempts at all the wrong moments with all the wrong players, and still achieving exactly the league average shot distributions, in terms of distances from the basket and location and so on. For example: Darko, dribbling with his left hand, turning for the little hook…. Does our count of shots taken from 3 to 9 feet reflect the “shot selection” there? Would another offense have shown the same percentages from those distances?
(But: The joy of quibbling about things like that just means this is a total treat to read on Sunday morning. Awesome, recced, and I will keep reading.)
You're right, I used a pretty broad term to apply to a much more specific thing.
There are better and worse shots within the categories that hoopdata shows. I do think the data do a pretty good job of establishing that a) the Wolves really were pretty bad at getting to the rim from most positions; and b) that wasn’t their biggest problem (though it didn’t help).
by Madison Dan on Jul 31, 2011 11:34 AM CDT up reply actions
Yeah, consider me a little too easily sold on the latter two arguments.
Seeing the numbers, though…. Shudder.
Beasley at least did take a few shots from mid range.
He’s the only Wolf putting up 10% or more of his shots from 10-15 feet, for example. There’s maybe something to do with the Trike’s vaunted offensive schem-ery there.
It's those Europeans you know.
seriously, there are some European big men that play center and sometimes or most of the time pf who shoot pretty good from out there.
I would venture to guess the AVERAGE NBA center...
….doesn’t really shoot much at all. Of those that do, don’t mind shoot from where ever their feet land.
And 50% from the 3??
Something’s gotta be wrong there.
by LoveLovesLove on Jul 31, 2011 11:55 PM CDT up reply actions
Pekovic is what we thought he was, offensively at least.
He was always gonna be a post player. He’s so unfamiliar with playing elsewhere that he gets called for 3 seconds a ton, just by staying in his comfort zone. His basketball mama has one of those kid leashes, and it’s tied to the basket post.
The Balkan Bulldozer can emerge next year. Ah, summer. Hope springs eternal. But I really think he’s got a shot. Darko won’t be soaking up the ball as an offensive focus under a new coach. Pekovic will have a year under his belt. I hope he’s training for a smidge less mass and a smidge more mobility, and developing his peripheral vision for those Rubio dimes.
He was a beastley PnR guy in Europe
My early call is he’s the only guy converting a high percentage of Ricky’s dimes early in the aeason because of his experience as an avgressive roll man.
Interviewer: Can you understand why teams value potential ahead of experience and accomplishment in the draft? Wes Johnson: "Yeah. I understand. It’s the youngness of everything – older guys like young women, so it’s the same way."
by Xand1 on Jul 31, 2011 7:29 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
Very nicely done again Madison Dan .
On interesting thing is that luke Ridnour appears to be very good at 10-15 feet like Sam Cassel was the only thing is Sam wouldn’t take the fewest shots from where he was best at. But with his rather light frame I could see Ridnour doing more 10-15 foot jumps and then when the defense starts to come out on him, making the pass to someone under the basket.
Thanks -- my opinion of Ridnour went up after looking at these stats.
He’s a pretty good player. We’d just be better off having him as a top sub than a low-level starter.
by Madison Dan on Jul 31, 2011 11:36 AM CDT up reply actions
Ridnour
Would be a very good backup point guard. He comes in, can facilitate, and can hit some shots. I just don’t think he has the ability to lead a team for 35+ minutes per game. I do think he could be a good mentor to rubio though. They each have skills that the other doesn’t have.
by domesticllama on Jul 31, 2011 11:52 AM CDT up reply actions
I knew his floater was good
But not that good. His scoring numbers outside the rim are truly impressive, especially from 3-9.
Interviewer: Can you understand why teams value potential ahead of experience and accomplishment in the draft? Wes Johnson: "Yeah. I understand. It’s the youngness of everything – older guys like young women, so it’s the same way."
by Xand1 on Jul 31, 2011 7:30 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Ah the joys of posting from a phone
His 10-15ft numbers are amazing, the rest are merely very good.
Interviewer: Can you understand why teams value potential ahead of experience and accomplishment in the draft? Wes Johnson: "Yeah. I understand. It’s the youngness of everything – older guys like young women, so it’s the same way."
by Xand1 on Jul 31, 2011 7:32 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
He sure can hit the middle jumper.
we all owe him an apology for getting mad at his pull-up jumpers. He hits those at a higher percentage then most of the team hits there at the rim shots, so all is forgiven.
The thing about Ridnour is, he's a PG who takes his own shots at weird, weird times.
Ridnour pulling up for an early three on a fast break still isn’t what I want for my team’s meals at the point. For dessert, okay.
Darko, take it to the @($/&;" rack!
Maddening.
by fanslaststand on Jul 31, 2011 11:12 AM CDT via mobile reply actions
Correction
(I’m putting it here instead of updating the table because getting tables into FanPosts drives me crazy.) Centers do not shoot 0.500 from 3-point land. The correct number is 0.355. It’s not worth describing how that bad number made its way into the table.
It is pretty silly.
I have to make pictures of tables, find another site to host those pictures, and then when I import the “pictures” it randomly decides whether to make it too tiny to read or just the right size. (Literally, it’s random as far as I can tell. I can just re-do the exact same process and a different thing will happen.) I would have posted this a week ago if not for the table headaches.
by Madison Dan on Jul 31, 2011 12:24 PM CDT up reply actions
OK - I made a Fan Post showing how you can do it
http://www.canishoopus.com/2011/7/31/2308481/one-way-to-create-tables-in-fan-posts
Hope that helps.
"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." -- Yogi Berra
by Wile E Coyote on Jul 31, 2011 10:22 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
PFs should a higher 3P% than Wings?
Must be because only good shooting PFs take three-pointers?
Great Stuff!
Too hot to handle, too cold to hold
They're called the Ghostbusters and they're in control
shoot == should
Too hot to handle, too cold to hold
They're called the Ghostbusters and they're in control
by littleboxes on Jul 31, 2011 12:45 PM CDT up reply actions
I also ran a similar "Shooting By Location" study
and found that about half of the Timberwolves’ shots were taken at the Target Center.
Your’s might have been a bit more scientifically-rigorous. Good work!
This account is to be used solely for recommending sbjake's Fan Posts.
by PoorDick on Jul 31, 2011 1:14 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Yes Pek has a sweet post game and awesome skill set
He is also a cool person as well.
I'm Trill, I'm running w/ the WOLVES
by running with Twolves (and scissors) on Jul 31, 2011 5:15 PM CDT up reply actions
he does have a problem "staying in the lane for more than 3 seconds"
I'm Trill, I'm running w/ the WOLVES
by running with Twolves (and scissors) on Aug 1, 2011 2:58 PM CDT up reply actions
Interesting stuff
Luke, Pek, Beasley, and Love all look like solid offensive players. Hopefully Ricky will give us our special sauce. All of those hook shots from Darko make me sick!
I'm Trill, I'm running w/ the WOLVES
by running with Twolves (and scissors) on Jul 31, 2011 5:16 PM CDT reply actions
sometimes it looks like if darko is just throwing it up and hoping it goes in
by jadedeed2327 on Jul 31, 2011 8:09 PM CDT up reply actions
what do you mean "looks life if?"
How many times have you seen Darko play? Did you see him play OKC or San Antonio this year?
I'm Trill, I'm running w/ the WOLVES
by running with Twolves (and scissors) on Jul 31, 2011 9:03 PM CDT up reply actions
which games?
I'm Trill, I'm running w/ the WOLVES
by running with Twolves (and scissors) on Aug 1, 2011 2:58 PM CDT up reply actions
Let the record show
in 3 games against the Knicks and Nets, Darko went 16-24 from the field for 35 points in 48 minutes.
In fairness to jadedeed
he didn’t say Darko missed the shots. ;)
I would read between the lines of his posts, but he almost never gets to a second line.
by Madison Dan on Aug 1, 2011 5:01 PM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
So basically you don't believe in the Eye test or the stat test
wow that’s fun stuff
I'm Trill, I'm running w/ the WOLVES
by running with Twolves (and scissors) on Aug 2, 2011 4:26 PM CDT up reply actions
I'm a bit surprised that Kevin Love's shooting...
… between 16 and 23 feet is so poor compared to the average NBA power forward. He’s a very good shooter, I don’t know how he only shoots .340 with his long two-pointers.
It's a pretty small sample
You notice that while he doesn’t shoot well from there, he also doesn’t shoot from there (only about half as much as a share of his total shots as the average PF). But he shoots many more 3s than that average PF. Another indication that he’s a very smart player.
If my math is right, he only took about 130 or so shots from that range over the whole season.
The Wolves are like the worst meal you've ever had--terrible while you're eating it and even worse later.
by Eric in Madison on Jul 31, 2011 8:29 PM CDT up reply actions
Shoots from there when he needs to
Meaning, end of shot clock or other undesirable situation. So he shoots a proportionately lower percentage. That’s my totally uneducated guess from 1000 ft.
might want to check at 82games. hell i'll look
nearly half his shots come within the last ten seconds of the shot clock so:
A. he tries to create for himself and gets stuck jacking a long two
B. wolves “offense” breaks down after the initial 5 second chuck period, they run a set and then dump to love for a bailout shot because he’s the stud.
i’m going with B because nearly 3/4 of his jumpers has someone accredited with an assist so he’s not holding the ball long when he takes many of his successful jumpers
and as its been stated rambis failed to utilize the 3-pt shot not only by emphasizing taking more of them but just having decoy shooters on the floor. yes he could not do this with flynn, sessions, and brewer but ridnour, ellington, webster, beasley, and tolliver in addition to love could all space the floor thus giving love those “channing frye jumpers” where you just skip the ball until the rotation cant catch up because the floor spacing is basically corner to corner and if love is center his man likely isnt going to recover or leave the paint until love sinks 5/7 from deep in the first 3 quarters
The realist keepin it real amongst the surrealists
R.I.P. Big Homey Nate Dogg: "Cuz Iiiiiiiiii have ne-evv-ver met a giiiiiiiiiirrrrrrllllllllllllllllllll tha-at I loved in the whole wide wooorrrlllllddddddd"
by starbury_to_s-jaxci2000 on Aug 4, 2011 11:26 PM CDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
NBA Playoffs Content Module
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Create-a-Caption: Jeff Pendergraph scares his Pacers teammates
- James Harden is a cake now
- Mike Miller loses shoe, plays two possessions without it, Pacers don’t score (VIDEO)
- Larry Bird calls his Indiana Pacers ‘soft’ following the team’s physical Game 5 loss to Miami
- Dexter Pittman’s elbow to Lance Stephenson’s throat is just one of three nasty hits in Miami/Indiana’s Game 5 (VIDEO)
