Effective Field Goal Percentage

[Phantom Warrior]

Based on Brewcity's post, I decided to figure out the effective field goal percentage for any Big East player who is averaging 24.0 mpg or higher. I figured that playing 60% of a team's minutes made sense as a dividing line.

As far as I can figure there are 35 players who have played at least 24.0 mpg among players who have played in at least 75% of their team's games. Here are the results from highest to lowest.

THE FIGURES BELOW ARE BASED ON THE CORRECTIONS BREWCITY MADE BELOW AFTER MY INITIAL POST AS MY FIGURES WERE BASED ON AN INCORRECT ANALYSIS OF THE DATA I LOOKED AT. THANKS FOR MAKING THE CORRECTIONS, BREW.

1. Fischer (MU) - .747
2. Reynolds (Nova) - .714
3. Pryor (GTown) - .643
4. Thomas (Creighton) - .641
5. Lewis (Butler) - .636
6. Hanel (DePaul) - .609
7. Bridges (Nova) - .605
8. Lindsey (Prov) - .601
9. Hart (Nova) - .598
10. Martin - (Butler) - .596
11. Delgado (SHU) - .594
12. Cain (DePaul ) - .565
13. Carrington (SHU) - .560
14. Ponds (St. John's) - .551
15. Foster (Creighton) - .543
16. Brunson (Nova) - .529
17. Peak (GTown) - .527
18. Holt - (Prov.) - .526
19. LoVett (St. John's ) - .525
20. Watson (Creighton - .519
21. Chrabascz (Butler) - .514
22. Bullock (Prov.) - .510
23. Jenkins (Nova) - .508
24. Johnson (MU) - .500
25. Cheatham (MU) - .473
26. Blueitt (Xavier) - .466
27. Ahmed (St. John's) - .455
28. Cartwright (Providence) - .452
29. Jones (SHU) - .449
30. Sumner (Xavier) - .446
31. Rodriguez (SHU) - .438
32. Macura (Xavier) - .436
33. Bernard (Xavier) - .423
34. McCallum (DePaul) - .397
35. Garrett (DePaul) - .353

Sorry, but based on these figures, I have to be skeptical of the value of any system that ranks Watson (#20), Bullock (#22), and Blueitt (#26) so low, yet ranks Joe Hanel (#7) so high.

When MU prepares to play Creighton, the staff will game plan to contain Watson and Foster, when they prepare to play Providence, the staff will game plan to contain Bullock, and when they prepare to play Xavier, the staff will game plan to contain Blueitt. And when MU prepares to play DePaul, the staff will game plan to control Cain, not Hanel.

By the way, for anyone who is interested, Katin's effective field goal percentage at this point is .360, Sam's is .655, Markus' is .661, Duane's is .508, and Andrew's is .506. (Traci's was .565.) And, for the record, Patton's effective field goal percentage is .791, but he is averaging 23.2 mpg, so I didn't include him.

[warriorfan4life]

When using eFG% and individual players, you also need to look at usage and possession percentages to determine overall value. Hanel is efficient, but rarely shoots. Most every team has at least one efficient role player.

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

Not sure how you were calculating eFG%, but I noticed at least a few that were wrong. I probably mistyped the formula. Here's the formula again:


(Two point field goals made) + (1.5 x Three point field goals made)
Total Field goal attempts

With that in mind, here's the top 35 (I noticed Desi Rodriguez also qualifies):

1) Luke Fischer (MU) - 74.7% (56/75 2PFG, 0/0 3PFG)
2) Darryl Reynolds (Nova) - 71.4% (25/35 2PFG, 0/0 3PFG)
3) Rodney Pryor (GT) - 70.2% (43/69 2PFG, 35/67 3PFG)
4) Mikal Bridges (Nova) - 69.7% (33/42 2PFG, 11/29 3PFG)
5) Tyler Lewis (But) - 69.6% (22/32 2PFG, 9/19 3PFG)
6) Jalen Lindsey (PC) - 67.9% (11/20 2PFG, 23/47 3PFG)
7) Khyri Thomas (Crei) - 66.8% (36/60 2PFG, 17/32 3PFG)
8) Josh Hart (Nova) - 65.4% (53/83 2PFG, 24/53 3PFG)
9t) Eli Cain (DPU) - 60.9% (48/85 2PFG, 24/53 3PFG)
9t) Joe Hanel (DPU) - 60.9% (14/23 2PFG, 0/0 3PFG)
11) Marcus Foster (Crei) - 60.3% (47/80 2PFG, 29/70 3PFG)
12) Angel Delgado (SHU) - 59.4% (63/106 2PFG, 0/0 3PFG)
13) Khadeen Carrington (SHU) - 57.9% (54/108 2PFG, 25/50 3PFG)
14) Shamorie Ponds (SJU) - 56.8% (32/69 2PFG, 37/85 3PFG)
15) L.J. Peak (GT) - 56.6% (43/78 2PFG, 14/35 3PFG)
16) Jalen Brunson (Nova) - 56.6% (32/62 2PFG, 16/37 3PFG)
17) Emmitt Holt - (PC) - 55.8% (41/74 2PFG, 8/21 3PFG)
18) Rodney Bullock (PC) - 55.3% (54/100 2PFG, 20/52 3PFG)
19) Kris Jenkins (Nova) - 55.2% (17/44 2PFG, 31/71 3PFG)
20) Jajuan Johnson (MU) - 55.2% (45/77 2PFG, 9/29 3PFG)
21) Marcus LoVett (SJU) - 54.0% (37/76 2PFG, 20/48 3PFG)
22) Kelan Martin (But) - 52.6% (41/83 2PFG, 27/72 3PFG)
23) Trevon Blueitt (XU) - 52.2% (40/78 2PFG, 28/79 3PFG)
24) Maurice Watson (Crei) - 51.7% (47/100 2PFG, 9/17 3PFG)
25) Andrew Chrabascz (But) - 50.6% (26/64 2PFG, 11/20 3PFG)
26) Haanif Cheatham (MU) - 50.0% (37/74 2PFG, 6/18 3PFG)
27) Edmond Sumner (XU) - 49.6% (49/90 2PFG, 5/24 3PFG)
28) J.P. Macura (XU) - 48.5% (32/68 2PFG, 21/63 3PFG)
29) Desi Rodriguez (SHU) - 48.4% (52/99 2PFG, 6/27 3PFG)
30) Madison Jones (SHU) - 48.0% (19/39 2PFG, 3/10 3PFG)
31) Bashir Ahmed (SJU) - 46.6% (25/68 2PFG, 20/50 3PFG)
32) Kyron Cartwright (PC) - 46.4% (54/100 2PFG, 20/52 3PFG)
33) Tre'Darius McCallum (DPU) - 45.6% (27/51 2PFG, 3/18 3PFG)
34) Malcolm Bernard (XU) - 45.4% (8/24 2PFG, 11/30 3PFG)
35) Billy Garrett (DPU) - 37.0% (28/79 2PFG, 7/25 3PFG)

A few thoughts looking at this...
.
Joe Hanel: He is an outlier on this list, which leads to two possible conclusions. First, that his incredibly low shot percentage (6.5% of shots taken, and just 23 total attempts for the year) means this stat is an outlier and that the more he shoots, the more he will regress to the mean (Only Reynolds has 35 or fewer shots, everyone else is more than double Hanel's FGA total). Second, DePaul is beset by terrible coaching that has one of their two best players in terms of eFG% (Hanel and Cain are exactly tied by percentage) is getting virtually no shots while Billy Garrett takes more than a quarter of the team's shots when he's on the floor.
Xavier, eek: I've thought all season Xavier is overrated as they barely slide by against teams like Lehigh and Missouri. It's very interesting that the four players they have playing are in the bottom 13 of this list. As a team, XU is 170th in the nation in eFG%. They have regressed in all four factors since last year. My guess is Xavier is looking at the 5-7 range in the Big East rather than the 2-4 that most predicted them at.
Tyler Lewis: As much as Hanel is an outlier, so is Tyler Lewis. His eFG% of 69.6% is more than 20 points higher than any other point of his career (45.6% last year). His usage has been low, so he will likely regress as the season goes on. I may be overly bullish on him so far. Good player to date, but probably won't remotely keep it up come conference play.
Nova is good: Obviously, but their five qualifiers are all in the top-19. No wonder they're considered a viable #1 and national title contender again.

[Nukem2]

Even advanced stats are just stats. Need to look at more than one. Mostly, though, you resally do end up with what you see on the court. The eye and sniff tests are still valid. Sorry, JayBee and Brew. ;)

[TheSultan]

I guess I don't understand what is so controversial about this. As Nukem says, they are just stats and you have to use the eye test. But FG% is incomplete because it doesn't cover the extra value a made three point shot gives you. EFG% is simply a weighted FG%.

The "four factors" that brew talked about have been statistically shown to be the more important factors that lead to a team winning a basketball game. Does that mean its a guaranty that if they win those factors that a team will win? Of course not. But it does show you what it is important to emphasize, and what is not so important. That's all.

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

The eye test leads people to believe someone like Marcus LoVett is a top-15 player in this league. The eye test is deceiving because wow moments can slant a viewpoint, and guys that are excellent but in an average, unassuming manner go unappreciated.

Contrasting LoVett is the average eFG% but all around excellent game of a guy like Chrabascz. He rebounds, assists, gets to the lone, really does a bit of everything except turn the ball over. Without advanced stats, he's just a mediocre 11/5 guy, but when you look at all the little things he does, it becomes clear why he's such a good player.

[MKE_GoldenEagleFan]

No one stat will be all encompassing, this is simply related to shooting efficiency, speaks nothing to passing, defense, rebounding, etc. Take it for what it is, a stat, a stat that is like any other stat, it can be spun to fit a narrative if need be.

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

No one stat will be all encompassing, this is simply related to shooting efficiency, speaks nothing to passing, defense, rebounding, etc. Take it for what it is, a stat, a stat that is like any other stat, it can be spun to fit a narrative if need be.

Very true. eFG% is a better predictor of team results than individual performance. If your team is winning eFG% your odds of winning the game increase significantly, but there's far more to individual performance. Individually, it can overrate a Hanel or underrate a Chrabascz.

Assist rate, turnover percentage, usage rate, and free throw rate also play a big part in individual offensive performance, and that's without getting into defense, which is built just as much on stats that go beyond basic quantification.

[Nukem2]

The eye test leads people to believe someone like Marcus LoVett is a top-15 player in this league. The eye test is deceiving because wow moments can slant a viewpoint, and guys that are excellent but in an average, unassuming manner go unappreciated.

Contrasting LoVett is the average eFG% but all around excellent game of a guy like Chrabascz. He rebounds, assists, gets to the lone, really does a bit of everything except turn the ball over. Without advanced stats, he's just a mediocre 11/5 guy, but when you look at all the little things he does, it becomes clear why he's such a good player.Chrabascz is exactly what I'm talking about. He is all over the place doing the right things. Obvious to the eye. Love watching him play (except against MU, of course).

[Phantom Warrior]

brewcity....

I really screwed up on Cartwright. I'm not sure how I did that - maybe looked at the wrong line at some point in the process, but I now have his efg% as 45.2%.

I also did have Rodriguez, just forgot to type him in (it was past midnight when I tried to do this).

I should know better than to try to do math that late at night (or early in the morning).

[Mucrisco]

This does not take into account how a defense is playing a player. There are scouting reports and players are defended differently. A shooter might be piggybacked and not given room to shoot. That opens up space for others to drive. Or a player might be given more attention by the help defense, even if they aren't double teamed. When you are setting up your help defense, you let their body positioning be the reason why a person doesn't drive. For some players, you are giving more help even before they put the ball on the floor. Because of that, more opportunities are given to their teammates, especially shooters. A post player's percentage might be higher. However, if he doesn't have shooters around him, his shots are tougher because the help defense can sag off their defenders. There are times when I will live with a bad shot or a forced shot, because the player is drawing so much attention that you can get an easy offensive rebound for a put back. These stats only paint a picture how a player is on a team. They don't tell you what their usefulness is or effectiveness as a player if you put them on any team.

Coaches make a living off of eye tests. They can tell if they like a player within two minutes. The rest of the time that they are looking for recruits, they look to see how they interact with their teammates, their coaches, and the refs. They look to see if they hustle after loose balls, if they play hard all the time etc. For people who understand basketball, all they need is an eye test. For those that aren't as knowledgeable, stats probably help them understand.

[Markedman]

This does not take into account how a defense is playing a player. There are scouting reports and players are defended differently. A shooter might be piggybacked and not given room to shoot. That opens up space for others to drive. Or a player might be given more attention by the help defense, even if they aren't double teamed. When you are setting up your help defense, you let their body positioning be the reason why a person doesn't drive. For some players, you are giving more help even before they put the ball on the floor. Because of that, more opportunities are given to their teammates, especially shooters. A post player's percentage might be higher. However, if he doesn't have shooters around him, his shots are tougher because the help defense can sag off their defenders. There are times when I will live with a bad shot or a forced shot, because the player is drawing so much attention that you can get an easy offensive rebound for a put back. These stats only paint a picture how a player is on a team. They don't tell you what their usefulness is or effectiveness as a player if you put them on any team.

Coaches make a living off of eye tests. They can tell if they like a player within two minutes. The rest of the time that they are looking for recruits, they look to see how they interact with their teammates, their coaches, and the refs. They look to see if they hustle after loose balls, if they play hard all the time etc. For people who understand basketball, all they need is an eye test. For those that aren't as knowledgeable, stats probably help them understand.

All coaches use advanced analytics now Crisco.... in coaching and evaluating their own players. Many times the stats will confirm what they can see with their eyes but they also want to see the numbers to be sure.

I think the interesting thing about the evolution of stats is fans used to look at points per game....rebounds per game...assists per game and judge a player by raw numbers.......now we know that you have to look deeper at those totals to decide if a player is helping or hurting his team. If you score 20 points a game but take 30 shots to do it you are not helping....ditto for rebounds which need to be looked at in context of rebound percentage not just the number of rebounds.......etc etc etc

Coaches have changed the way they look at the game based on these new stats as well. Just ask Buzz, Wojo or Steve Kerr.

[Phantom Warrior]

Thanks for the corrections!

I know what I did wrong. It wasn't your explanation of the equation.

I did not subtract the number of three-point field goals attempted and made from the total number of field goals attempted and made to get the number of two-point field goals attempted and made. Just plain stupid mistake on my part.

Thanks for calculating all the corrections. I used those corrections on another site where I had already posted my original calculations. I trust that's not a problem as I hate to have the wrong info/data viewed as being correct when it's not.

By the way, I agree with all the comments about Chrabascz, and I would add that I feel the same way about Rodriguez. His efg% is pretty low, lower than JJ's, for example, but given the choice, I would much rather have Rodriguez at the 3 as he brings so much else to the table - rebounding, defense, and all-around toughness.

[mufan2003]

This does not take into account how a defense is playing a player. There are scouting reports and players are defended differently. A shooter might be piggybacked and not given room to shoot. That opens up space for others to drive. Or a player might be given more attention by the help defense, even if they aren't double teamed. When you are setting up your help defense, you let their body positioning be the reason why a person doesn't drive. For some players, you are giving more help even before they put the ball on the floor. Because of that, more opportunities are given to their teammates, especially shooters. A post player's percentage might be higher. However, if he doesn't have shooters around him, his shots are tougher because the help defense can sag off their defenders. There are times when I will live with a bad shot or a forced shot, because the player is drawing so much attention that you can get an easy offensive rebound for a put back. These stats only paint a picture how a player is on a team. They don't tell you what their usefulness is or effectiveness as a player if you put them on any team.

Coaches make a living off of eye tests. They can tell if they like a player within two minutes. The rest of the time that they are looking for recruits, they look to see how they interact with their teammates, their coaches, and the refs. They look to see if they hustle after loose balls, if they play hard all the time etc. For people who understand basketball, all they need is an eye test. For those that aren't as knowledgeable, stats probably help them understand.

Good post. Forgot who posted it, but someone said Kelan Martin should not be Top 15 in the Big East because his usage rate is too high for his efficiency. Eliminating Chris Holtmann (biased), I think every one of the other 9 coaches in the Big East would have Kelan Martin in the Top 15. He has size (6'7"), can score on all 3 levels, and produces in big games/clutch situations. He and Chrabascz are the focus of opposing teams' scouting reports. Teammates will have open looks because of the attention Martin draws while Martin will often face double-teams or the opponents' best defender.

Advanced stats/metrics are useful and have a role.....but the eye test, watching a player several times and understanding the context of a player's role on a team cannot be fully captured by advanced stats.

[Mucrisco]

All coaches use advanced analytics now Crisco.... in coaching and evaluating their own players. Many times the stats will confirm what they can see with their eyes but they also want to see the numbers to be sure.

I think the interesting thing about the evolution of stats is fans used to look at points per game....rebounds per game...assists per game and judge a player by raw numbers.......now we know that you have to look deeper at those totals to decide if a player is helping or hurting his team. If you score 20 points a game but take 30 shots to do it you are not helping....ditto for rebounds which need to be looked at in context of rebound percentage not just the number of rebounds.......etc etc etc

Coaches have changed the way they look at the game based on these new stats as well. Just ask Buzz, Wojo or Steve Kerr.

Exactly. They use the stats to help paint the picture. However, they don't tell the whole story. I'm not saying these stats aren't useful. However, alone, they don't explain the game of basketball.

I can tell you with confidence that when you go into an AAU tournament to find players, where there are thousands of players and hundreds of teams, they are not using stats to find them. Like I said, it takes a couple of minutes for them locate what players they like in a game. Beyond that, they are looking to see if those players will dive on the ground for loose balls. They are looking to see if they look their coach in the eye. They are looking to see how they react to a teammate when he makes a bad play. They are looking to see how they react to a ref with a bad call. Those little things matter because they tell you how much a player wants to win and the manner that they compete. Those things don't show up in stats.

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

Good post. Forgot who posted it, but someone said Kelan Martin should not be Top 15 in the Big East because his usage rate is too high for his efficiency.

That was me, and I haven't been as impressed with Martin this year as last. In some of their biggest games, he's seemed to be disappointing. The loss to Indiana State, the Vanderbilt and Arizona games, maybe it's when I've seen him, but too many turnovers, too many shots, not enough production in those games.

I'll admit I missed his last two against Cincy and Indiana, and those look like two of his best games this year, but I can live a lot easier with a volume shooter who is doing other things (rebounding was way better last year) and not turning it over.

EDIT: And one other thing, I know there are people at AAU tournaments that are looking at the advanced stats. Especially when you talk about the big events (EYBL or Uprising) there are definitely people charting those numbers.

I'm sure there are some that don't, but there are plenty more that do.

[Gato78]

Chrabasz reminds me of Dave Cowan. Way better than his stats.

[Phantom Warrior]

If memory serves, Cowan broke some NCAA rebounding record.

I watched him at the Arena in the Milwaukee Classic, and he was a rebounding machine. I don't think I've ever seen a better rebounder in terms of inch for inch, and that includes Rodman. The think is he was also a prolific scorer.

I don't have the inclination to look up his ppg and rpg stats in college, but I think he was among the national leaders in scoring and was the leader in rebounding. At least that's how I remember him.

[Nukem2]

If memory serves, Cowan broke some NCAA rebounding record.

I watched him at the Arena in the Milwaukee Classic, and he was a rebounding machine. I don't think I've ever seen a better rebounder in terms of inch for inch, and that includes Rodman. The think is he was also a prolific scorer.

I don't have the inclination to look up his ppg and rpg stats in college, but I think he was among the national leaders in scoring and was the leader in rebounding. At least that's how I remember him.

The name is Dave Cowens and he did put up big numbers in college and NBA. Chrabacz is a much different player. Remember that Classic game as well. We are dating ourselves.!