It's a shame he couldn't factor in shots inside of 5 ft. I'd also like to see the data on getting points as a result of being fouled on shots. Pretty incomplete study and nothing at all revolutionary or interesting.
IMO
I'm guessing it's impossible to count shots where players are fouled since they don't count as field goal attempts unless they make them. (Unless he actually had someone watch 4000 games and chart 340,000 shots, which is extremely doubtful).
I think it is extremely useful and interesting, because it's quantifying hard data about shot selection to the public...I'm sure a lot of this is used on teams internally and has been conventional wisdom of HBBIQers, but nothing remotely comparable has been put out like this...ever.
I understand it's difficult to figure in points off foul shooting, but without it, it's just inconclusive and not a very legit indicator of good shot selection. It's common sense that a 20ft shot is better than a 16 ft shot, because you have about the same likelyhood of making the longer one that' s worth an extra point. However, once you get inside the paint, chances of getting fouled on shot go up ...but how much? and at what rate does the increase the closer you get in?
Also, he says he doesn't include shots inside of 5ft because it's impossible to tell whether or not those are fast break points. Well, how many of these jumpers are fast break points? Automatically assuming all shots outside of 5ft are in the half court is ridiculous.
A good study would be something showing points per shot attempt not FG%. You would have to include "shot attempts" that resulted in fouls and the resulting free throws made. He'd have to use the time on the shot clock to eliminate fastbreak points.
BTW, this graph does nothing at all to change the minds of the "mid range game traditionalists". Their whole point is that nobody can shoot the midrange shot anymore and that everybody just wants to take threes....which is exactly the only thing this graph proves to be true. A stronger argument would be made on a points per shot attempt study. This would show that even if a team made 50% of their long range 2s it's better to shoot 3s at the 38% shown on the graph.
Of course, when it's all said and done, good shot selection has a lot more to do with the individuals players taking shots they are comfortable with.
