Outside Shooting: The Myth

by leeroyjenkins on Feb 4, 2008 9:33 AM PST

I keep reading about how astonished Blazer fans are that suddenly "the open shots aren't falling" and how maybe that accounts for the recent spate of sketchy play.

The Blazers have very little proven outside shooting. So if you are surprised the shots suddenly aren't falling, maybe you shouldn't be. And if the team continues to game-plan around chucking up outside jumpers, I'm guessing we can kiss the play-offs good-bye.

To the stats we go:

Sergio: Career 40% FG shooter

James Jones: Career 40.5% FG shooter

Martell Webster: Career 40.3% FG shooter

Steve Blake: Career 41% FG shooter

Jarrett Jack: Career 44% FG shooter

Travis Outlaw: Career 45% FG shooter

Brandon Roy: Career 46% FG shooter

Channing Frye: Career 46% FG shooter

LMA: Career 49% shooter

Joel Przbilla: Career 54% shooter

The only shooter above 50% career takes 3 shots per game (Prz). Other than Josh McRoberts, Prz, and Raef, there's not a legitimate scoring Blazer in the top 100 in the NBA in FG%. LMA is at #104 and then after that the next Blazer shooters are Channing Frye and James Jones tied at #148. Brandon Roy, the only non-center/forward on the team in the top 175 in the league, is at #170.

So where is all this fantastic outside shooting? Why do people insist that this is a great shooting team? That the problem is "shots aren't falling"? Have we ever played poker? Do we understand how a bad player can win in the short term? Same concept applies to below-average shooters shooting lights out for a stretch of 10-15 games. Martell has a beautiful shooting form and can get streaky hot, but the numbers say he can't shoot consistently. James Jones was red-hot for a month, but he's never shot above 42% in a single season (22%, 39%, 42%, 37%) of his NBA career. THose numbers are actually really pathetic for a 'shooter' Travis Outlaw makes some key outside jumpers, but overall he's shooting 45% from the floor which isn't terrible and isn't great. Problem with Travis is that he can dunk and/or get fouled at will, and instead he frequently settles for isolation fadeaways with a bunch time left on the shot clock. LMA and Frye can hit from the outside on occasion, but do you really want your 6'11" center/forwards shooting 20-footers all game??? Who's gonna rebound? The answer is and obviously has been all season: "nobody"

0 recs | Comment 27 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Final Note: Portland is now 15th in the league

in FG%.

And rapidly dropping, or coming back down to earth you might say.

In the last 10 games: 43.5% FG%, 25th in the league

In the last 5 games: 40.7 FG%, 27th in the league

by leeroyjenkins on Feb 4, 2008 9:42 AM PST 0 recs

Get a rope.

"I was in the neighborhood, feeling a little daffy, so I thought I would stop in for an aperitif."

by Kampeska on Feb 4, 2008 12:04 PM PST up 0 recs

I don't get it

also, where does your quote come from?

by BlazersOrBust on Feb 4, 2008 1:09 PM PST up 0 recs

"Get a rope"

is from a Pace Picante Sauce commercial. The other sauce was not country. "This picante sauce is from New York City." "New York City?" "Get a rope." This implies the imminent demise of the offending maker of the urban sauce. Meaning I disagreed with the post.

The other quote is from Miller's Crossing.

"I was in the neighborhood, feeling a little daffy, so I thought I would stop in for an aperitif."

by Kampeska on Feb 5, 2008 10:43 PM PST up 0 recs

Should we just toss in the towels?

Rather than looking at individual statistics, it would be interesting to see statistics of players' "hot spots" on the floor. Compare this FG% to the win streak FG% using the same spots and I think this would show more about offensive flow of the blazers...

I think you bring up a good point, but players do go in streaks, and consistently shoot a higher FG% from certain areas...

I think there is still hope

by hotstuffdb22 on Feb 4, 2008 9:43 AM PST 0 recs

i agree

If B.roy can get into the paint and create wide open (catch and shoot) jump shots for JJ3, Webster, Steve Blake, Frye and Aldridge. I want our bigs hitting 18-20 footers and taking guys like Tyson Chandler out of the paint and creating scoring opportunities around the basket. And in order for those guys to make those shots they need to take those shots. What would you rather have our team do LeeRoy? Only take lay-ups? thats seems possible? or are you arguing that this team just is not good enough? and that they will never shoot a high enough to win?

by lefty30 on Feb 4, 2008 9:54 AM PST up 0 recs

Hitting shots

It is nice if our bigs can hit jumpers because that is an added dimension. I would much rather our bigs take it at the Tyson Chandlers. Getting those guys in foul trouble and out of the game is a lot more effective in neutralizing them than taking perimeter shots where you are statistically going to make less than 1 out of every 2 shots you take....and leading to rebounds where your bigs have no chance of getting it on the perimeter...and leading to long rebounds for fast breaks for the other team.

I'm hip, I'm slick, and all the women want my phone number!

by silkybrown on Feb 4, 2008 10:33 AM PST up 0 recs

to expand on your point

During the win streak those shooters were open because guys were slashing to the hoop (Brandon and Jarret). The shooting % went down when jack stopped driving to the hoop. THe more those two guys drive a lane the more shooters become open.

by NWfan on Feb 4, 2008 2:03 PM PST up 0 recs

frye and LMA

in my opinion dont have the inside/back to the basket game to compete with most NBA bigs...and if LMA is in the post his fade away jumper is not putting him in a better position to rebound. I would love to see LMA get more touches in the post and perhaps we abandon that set too early and get high pick and roll obsessed but i think you have to put the ball in Roys hands and you have to get some of those big trees out of the lane.

by lefty30 on Feb 4, 2008 5:04 PM PST up 0 recs

An interesting and original post...

...........well played!

The numbers for Sergio and Martell are particularly enlightening.

I would have given up on Sergio yesterday. Not quite sure what KP sees in him. Maybe crazy, out of control dribbling and wild shots are what puts fans in the seats or something. I don't see how he fits in either this year or in the future with the Blazers.

As for Martell, he may have veteran experience, but physically he's basically a 1st or 2nd year player. I'd give him a little more time and see if he gets a little stronger and also if he learns how to start making space for his shots.

Don't care what Blake's career numbers are, anyone who has been paying the slightest bit of attention this year knows that guy can stroke -- and he's consistent, unlike Mr. Webster.

But the point made about the Blazers not being all that blazing as jump shooters, despite putting all their eggs in that basket, is fascinating.

by timbo on Feb 4, 2008 9:44 AM PST 0 recs

Not the complete picture...

The Blazers are number two in the league for 3-pt shooting for a reason. James Jones is a poor career FG% guy, but he takes a huge amount of 3-pt shots. His eFG% has always been above average. Martell takes a lot of 3's, but he hasn't been as good as Jones in eFG%. However, Martell is 21 and improving, making past data not quite as big. Blake is another volume 3-pt shooter.

Sergio can't shoot. Not that surprising. Outlaw is not a good shooter either...except in crunch time.

Jack is an effective scorer because he gets to the free throw line often. He shouldn't take as many outside shots, though he takes less than others anyway.

Really, the Blazers as a whole have been in the top half of eFG% for the entire season, fluctuating from top 10 to only top 15. It is a bit unrealiable, but there's not much that can be done when there are few slashers/post up men on the team.

I suppose we are a "great shooting team" because we've been at least above average in eFG% despite taking such a large amount of jump shots.

by poster on Feb 4, 2008 10:05 AM PST 0 recs

small sample size

I don't consider career numbers for most of our players to be terribly meaningful, considering that you're looking at 1.5 or 2.5 seasons in most cases. So I don't consider our early shooting numbers "bad players on a hot roll". Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean that we're great shooters on a cold streak either. Closer to the truth, I think, is that we have a bunch of decent to good shooters in an offense designed to create open looks from the outside. The offense has been running fine lately, but from what I saw in the Cleveland and NY games, we've just been missing wide open looks. I'd understand if we were bricking jumpshots under pressure, but any guard or SF in the league should be able to hit a decent percentage of unguarded shots from anywhere on the floor. It's just not happening right now. And since we don't have a strong inside presence or a fastbreak offense, our FG% is almost entirely based off jump-shooting. I think the fact that the team's in the top half of the league in FG%, considering how many outside shots they take, is why the PTBs are considered a good shooting team.

by abdelnaby on Feb 4, 2008 10:18 AM PST 0 recs

Career Numbers -- the Myth

Career numbers don't really tell an accurate story on such a young team. Travis this year and Travis his first three years are completely different players. Channing last year, Channing this year, and Channing two years ago are also completely different. You just can't look at career numbers and get any real indication with 2-3 year players, especially when some of them came right out of high school.

Blake's career numbers aren't a great indicator because he's been yanked around to so many different places and situations in his career. I think we're seeing the real Steve Blake this year. Consistent role and playing minutes, and he's shooting well.

James Jones' percentage is not a good indicator, because so many of his shots are 3s.

We started 5-12. We went on a tear. We've now leveled off (5-5 out of the last 10), while shooting poorly. We've still won half of our last ten, and those ten included some very tough games. During that time, we were the 25th best shooting team in the league, you say? And we won 5 of them, with a team that can't rebound, went cold on shooting, and has no interior defense? That's pretty good -- we must be doing SOMETHING right. Want to guess how many of our first 17 we would have won with that kind of shooting?

So we're 15th in the league. That proves we've shot very well this season, because every team in the league gets a lot more easy buckets than we do.

Sure, we're not consistent. Teams that rely on outside shooting aren't. But this is still a very good shooting team, and once Oden provides the inside threat and the rebounding/shot-blocking to start some fastbreaks, we'll be in the top 5 shooting teams year in and year out.

As fatty would say, if he were here, book it.

by jscot on Feb 4, 2008 10:19 AM PST 0 recs

Travis

I've watched most of Travis Outlaw's games and I'm not really seeing that big of a change in his game. Minor improvements and steady development, sure, but not "completely different". The thing with Travis was, if you watched him, he was always good in the 4th quarter. It just so happened that in the previous years, if Travis came in in the 4th quarter it was garbage time and everybody discounted his production. Now that we're actually in a position to win in the 4th quarter everyone acts like Super Trout is some shocking surprise.

by Jumbo on Feb 4, 2008 3:47 PM PST up 0 recs

Lots of good points in this thread

Leeroy's main point is good- the Blazers were in a hot streak from beyond the arc and it wasn't sustainable.

I also agree that career stats aren't the whole story with a young team. If you were watching all through the pain of the last few years, you know Travis in years 1-2 (and even years 3-4) was terrible. Much worse than Sergio or Webster are now. Giving up on a young player, especially one with no college experience is a mistake.

We're a solid jump shooting team but not good enough to win consistently if we rely on it. We need more inside play from Aldridge and more drives to the hoop from Roy and Jack.

by jksnake99 on Feb 4, 2008 10:38 AM PST 0 recs

Well said

But guess what? What we see is mostly what we're going to get.

They could try to turn Aldridge into a low post player, but it would be a mistake. It would win more games for us this year, no doubt. But we're playing for the future, and next year, we want him living in the high post and popping those mid-range jumpers.

This team has every player playing the game as they will next year. That's what makes it so scary. They're winning a lot of games even though they didn't adjust anyone's style to compensate for Oden's absence. This team is built to fit phenomenally around a monster in the paint. Without the monster, we're a weak, small, jump-shooting team that can't rebound -- and we're still winning a bunch of games.

How many games would Orlando win without Howard?

I think they've made the right decision. The game LMA is playing is all wrong for this year, but absolutely perfect for next year. Don't mess up his rhythm, just take our lumps this year, and enjoy 60 wins next year. He'll be devastating with Oden in the low post demanding double teams. Absolutely devastating.

by jscot on Feb 4, 2008 10:52 AM PST up 0 recs

Adjusting one's game isn't chopping a Chevy...

..............play the style that fits this year this year and the style that fits next year next year.

That's not too much to ask.

It just might be that LMA's current game will be brilliantly perfect if Oden is what most people think Oden will be -- but that doesn't change the fact that THERE IS NO ODEN THIS YEAR.

When AC Green came to OSU, he was a power forward. His last year, I think it was, they needed him to play center and he did that. And then he became a NBA power forward with no lasting damage to his game.

It's not like if LMA has to work on rebounding technique and going up strong in close this year, that's suddenly going to make him a crappy high post player next year.

He'll just be more versatile!

by timbo on Feb 4, 2008 11:01 AM PST up 0 recs

low post moves important too

I think to maximize his potential LMA needs to be able to mix it up inside as well as outside ala BRoy. Did you catch any of the Dallas/Detroit game? Dallas missed something like their first 16 shots and then Dirk just started taking absolutely everything inside. Not as pretty as his normal game but he battled inside and was very effective. I didn't know he had an inside game.

by blazernerd on Feb 4, 2008 1:55 PM PST up 0 recs

Well put...

............presuming KP isn't just blowing smoke and really isn't going to trade for a fix this year.

>> We need more inside play from Aldridge and more drives to the hoop from Roy and Jack.

That's what it takes: LMA staying low and Roy and Jack (and Travis) driving the lane FAR more often than they have been to date.

This is achievable without hampering the beloved team chemistry.

by timbo on Feb 4, 2008 10:54 AM PST up 0 recs

Overall FG% is not a good indicator

for guys who shoot alot of 3's. 2's and 3's should be separated in the stats.

For example, almost 1/2 of Martell's shots are 3's. He is shooting .442 from 2 and .381 from 3. The overall number is .413 which is misleading.

A better indication would points per attempt. For his 402 shots, Martell has scored 406 points. That is better than 1 point per shot. I consider that to be pretty good.

Roy 713 points on 727 shots. .980
Aldridge 578 - 594 .973
Outlaw 475 - 503 .944
Webster 406 - 402 1.009
Jones 244 - 199 1.226
Jack 302 - 320 .943
Blake 330 - 293 1.126
Frye 238 - 255 .933
Przybilla 168 - 150 1.120
Rodriguez 109 - 132 .825

Jones actually gets us the most points per shot.

by TallTimber on Feb 4, 2008 12:22 PM PST 0 recs

Truth in Scoring

EXCELLENT POST

"Life is a meaningless sequence of events in between Blazer championships"

by broggerboy19 on Feb 4, 2008 1:51 PM PST up 0 recs

I like that stat...

POINTS PER SHOT.

That's a keeper.

I also propose

REBOUNDS PER 30 MINUTES.

ASSISTS PER 30 MINUTES.

That's an average stint for a player in an NBA game. The current stats just figure points per game, which overrates players who play a ton of minutes and underrates bench contributors.

by timbo on Feb 4, 2008 4:37 PM PST up 0 recs

Take a look at Sergio

DEAD LAST.

by robrun2 on Feb 4, 2008 5:53 PM PST up 0 recs

Points per shots isn't very good

because shots you are fouled on and missed aren't counted as shots, but you can still score points on them. To work, you need to include the total number of actual shots taken, not the "shot attempts" listed in stat sheets.

by pualo on Feb 4, 2008 5:07 PM PST up 0 recs

How about this

This includes a players ability to get to the line.

Total Points / Shots Attempted

Roy 890 727 1.224
Aldridge 704 594 1.185
Outlaw 596 503 1.185
Webster 476 402 1.184
Jones 310 199 1.558
Jack 418 320 1.306
Blake 349 293 1.191
Frye 282 255 1.106
Przybilla 222 150 1.480
Rodriguez 127 132 0.962

A few others

Kobe 1309 964 1.358
LeBron 1203 890 1.352
AI 1240 900 1.377
Melo 1046 820 1.276

by TallTimber on Feb 4, 2008 5:50 PM PST up 0 recs

Also

There are players that take a ridiculously huge amount of free throws, and those obviously don't count as "shot attempts." Regardless, I like Points per Attempt better than FG%. At least, it gives justice to players who take most of their shots from beyond the arc.

by Eventine on Feb 4, 2008 6:05 PM PST up 0 recs

FG% is a poor measure

Because it tells you very little about shot selection.

Is a guy shooting 35% because he is hoisting a lot of threes or taking the shot as the shot clock winds down?

What's our shooting percentage when we beat the defensive rotation for open set shots?

What's our percentage when we just pass the ball around the perimeter until there is 5 second on the clock, and then attempt a pull up jumper with a defender (or helper) on it?

I don't think the quality of the shot has changed over the past 10 games, but there's a lot more defenders attempting to block those shots, we're shooting more shots under duress, etc.

If we commit on offense to beating the defense with ball movement, make attempts to penetrate and kick or hit a cutter, our FG% will magically rise again. Right now, we're settling for jumpers. That's all.

by manzell on Feb 4, 2008 5:31 PM PST 0 recs