FG% is the most overrated stat on ISH..

[DMAVS41]

I thought I like to address this once and for all.

Look at the Thunders, with Westbrook the chucker gone they should be infinitely better. It is the shot selectionist' wet dream. Durant the efficient scorer making efficient shots, no more of that low bball iq monkey of a player.

Yet what happened? They loss 2 straight when they won 3 previously.

Look at the Lakers, with Kobe the chucker gone, Lakers should be infinitely better. Again a shot selectionist' wet dream. Just pound the ball to Howard and Gasol = Wins.

Yet again? Sweep.

So simple, yet is not. Basketball is not purely a maths game. Volume scorers with albeit lower FG% are much maligned. You can't base a player's greatness on STATS!

To explain this phenomenon, I like to think that as much as a chucker Westbrook is, he is a dangerous offensive threat. He makes team defenses focus on him so that it can open up offense for other players like Durant and Co.

Shot selection is one thing, but it is overrated. If someone passes the ball to say player A, and player A only makes open shots/easy shots otherwise he passes. The person guarding player A knows that he won't drive/shoot, so his job on defense becomes much easier. If a player is guarding Westbrook, he has to always be on guard because Westbrook might pull up even for a contested shot, drive pass him for a layup or pass if he sees someone open. So even though he makes "stupid" shots in a sense he changes the game dynamics totally.

These "game dynamics" i'm talking about do not show in a box score. Thus, a box score freak might just pull up a game, see that Westbrook is a 41% FG shooter and thinks his the worst player in the planet.

This just makes total sense to why Lakers/Thunder with their chucker gone they seemingly falter though FG% formula equates that they should succeed.

Who honestly thinks Westbrook is a net negative on the Thunder? I doubt anyone would go as far to say that.

Westbrook is a great player...and does many more things than just score.

But, if we are just talking about offensive efficiency, Westbrook would be a hell of a lot better if he shot 53% like Tony Parker. Just the truth.

Doesn't mean he's not a great player...just means there is a lot of room for improvement in terms of offensive efficiency.

Kobe Bryant is universally accepted as a top 10 player of all time...yet he has shot under 45% in the playoffs for his career. So I don't get how it is such an over-rated thing.

[dh144498]

Who honestly thinks Westbrook is a net negative on the Thunder? I doubt anyone would go as far to say that.

Westbrook is a great player...and does many more things than just score.

But, if we are just talking about offensive efficiency, Westbrook would be a hell of a lot better if he shot 53% like Tony Parker. Just the truth.

Doesn't mean he's not a great player...just means there is a lot of room for improvement in terms of offensive efficiency.

Kobe Bryant is universally accepted as a top 10 player of all time...yet he has shot under 45% in the playoffs for his career. So I don't get how it is such an over-rated thing.

they both get scrutinized for their FG%.

[DMAVS41]

they both get scrutinized for their FG%.

As they should.

There is a difference between saying a guy should be more efficient...and saying he sucks overall as a player because he shoots under 45% or something.

The Westbrook thing the OP is talking about doesn't even make sense. Westbrook isn't a great player because of his fg%...in fact, Westbrook's efficiency from the field is his biggest weakness. He is a great player though.

So I don't get the correlation. Everyone accepts that guys like Westbrook and Rose are two of the best players in the league.

Using only fg% to judge a player is silly. But saying players like Rose and Westbrook should be more efficient is not silly.

You really think Rose shouldn't have been criticized for shooting less than 40$ overall in the playoffs in 11?

[Rose'sACL]

As they should.

There is a difference between saying a guy should be more efficient...and saying he sucks overall as a player because he shoots under 45% or something.

The Westbrook thing the OP is talking about doesn't even make sense. Westbrook isn't a great player because of his fg%...in fact, Westbrook's efficiency from the field is his biggest weakness. He is a great player though.

So I don't get the correlation. Everyone accepts that guys like Westbrook and Rose are two of the best players in the league.

Using only fg% to judge a player is silly. But saying players like Rose and Westbrook should be more efficient is not silly.

You really think Rose shouldn't have been criticized for shooting less than 40$ overall in the playoffs in 11?

That is why Pop is such a great coach. He gets mad at players even when they score but try to go for hard shots when easier shots are available. Most NBA fans don't care for things like those and one of the reason knicks didn't sweep Celtics.
If you tell a kobe fan that kobe should take better shots, they assume that you are saying that kobe is not a great player. lebron was told to do better in 4th quarter and kobe should be told to pass when he has to shoot over 2 defenders if his team mate is open unless that team mate is reggie evans.

[Ne 1]

The problem is too many people just look up box-scores and come to conclusions with an analysis that is just pure stat related. Let's say a player shoots 42% in one game and loses, yet shoots 38% in another game and wins hitting two 3's in the 4'th quarter: which is better? These stat geeks that harp on FG% will say the former is better and they're wrong. Not to mention FG% dosen't weigh in the extra value of making a 3pt field goal or a free throw.

But anyway FG% like any other stat has a purpose when taken in proper context. Statistics in and of themselves, particularly when one is making an argument using a single statistic, serve no purpose and of course don't tell the whole story.

[DMAVS41]

That is why Pop is such a great coach. He gets mad at players even when they score but try to go for hard shots when easier shots are available. Most NBA fans don't care for things like those and one of the reason knicks didn't sweep Celtics.
If you tell a kobe fan that kobe should take better shots, they assume that you are saying that kobe is not a great player. lebron was told to do better in 4th quarter and kobe should be told to pass when he has to shoot over 2 defenders if his team mate is open unless that team mate is reggie evans.

Yea. Melo is awesome...very good player. But he takes between 4 to 6 awful shots a game...more than even that these last two games.

He takes those shots....and he doesn't need to. He could create and then pass. He could attack instead of settling...etc.

He'd be a much better player if he cut out the fat in his game and only took 1 or 2 bad shots per game and not the 5 plus he has most of his career.

How on earth anyone can sit there and say Melo or Rose or Westbrook wouldn't be better if they took better shots is beyond me.

[MJ23forever]

FG% is what Batting Average is to baseball, an incomplete, uninformative. and outdated statistic.

[longtime lurker]

LBJs 56%FG is the reason why MIA has the best record in the NBA.

Kobes 46%FG is the reason why LAL has the worse record in the NBA despite most talent on the west.

go figure!

PPG is the most overrated stat in the NBA because it does not factor in FGA & PPMinute.

FG% is the most IMPORTANT stat in the NBA. Nothing is more important than FG%. this is a singular reason why teams go on winning 60+ games & go on having Post Season success.

This yr LBJ with 56%FG

& Wade with 52%FG

is the reason MIA steamrolled through reg sea.

Compare that to kobe's 23FGA @ 46%FG

Perfect example of the morons that infest this board.

[Pointguard]

Yea. Melo is awesome...very good player. But he takes between 4 to 6 awful shots a game...more than even that these last two games.

He takes those shots....and he doesn't need to. He could create and then pass. He could attack instead of settling...etc.

He'd be a much better player if he cut out the fat in his game and only took 1 or 2 bad shots per game and not the 5 plus he has most of his career.

How on earth anyone can sit there and say Melo or Rose or Westbrook wouldn't be better if they took better shots is beyond me.

Rose actually shoots very well for a PG career-wise. He had one tough year in the playoffs which everybody has. And he had to do that that year. So lets not get carried away.

[DMAVS41]

Rose actually shoots very well for a PG career-wise. He had one tough year in the playoffs which everybody has. And he had to do that that year. So lets not get carried away.

All I said was shooting sub 40% in the playoffs on high volume is almost never going to get the job done.

Which it isn't....and Rose would be a much better player if he passed a bit more and attacked a bit more rather than settling for so many 3's.

[NumberSix]

eFG% > FG% > TS%

[Pointguard]

All I said was shooting sub 40% in the playoffs on high volume is almost never going to get the job done.

You need to try looking at your favorite player Dirk. He's proves that false in a big way. His FG% in the last three games of most of his important series ('06, '07 and '11) is less that 40% without question. Even when he won it all he shot 37% in the last three games.

Rose never shot 38% in the playoffs with a guy 4 inches smaller than him and 30 pounds lighter - while loosing convincingly to an 8 seed and giving the reigns of the team up to a no name like Josh Howard.

[NumberSix]

You need to try looking at your favorite player Dirk. He's proves that false in a big way. His FG% in the last three games of most of his important series ('06, '07 and '11) is less that 40% without question. Even when he won it all he shot 37% in the last three games.

Rose never shot 38% in the playoffs with a guy 4 inches smaller than him and 30 pounds lighter - while loosing convincingly to an 8 seed and giving the reigns of the team up to a no name like Josh Howard.

Yeah, Dirk struggled with his shot in the finals. He didn't play bad. He was making good plays, shot just didn't fall.

There's a difference between playing well and playing dumb. There's a big difference between getting good shots and just missing and some retard chucking stupid shots.

[TheMarkMadsen]

eFG% > FG% > TS%

so then you would agree that a 24 year old Durant is a more efficient scorer than a 24,25, 26, & 27 year old Lebron

[NumberSix]

so then you would agree that a 24 year old Durant is a more efficient scorer than a 24,25, 26, & 27 year old Lebron

27? No. 24? Yes. 25-26 are debatable.

Has anybody ever debated that Durant is a better shooter than LeBron?