Apparently Marty, Stacey, and I are “three Real Smart Guys.” At least, that is what Michael Bradley of CBS Sportline.com claims in a column posted on Thursday. Bradley makes this unbelievable claim in the course of arguing why Kobe Bryant is not the MVP this season. Bradley’s argument about Kobe echoes a post I made to The Wages of Wins Journal on April 15.
The basic argument both Bradley and I make is that Kobe Bryant’s scoring is the primary reason people think he is league MVP. But in terms of shooting efficiency, Kobe does not achieve his lofty scoring totals by hitting the highest percentage of shots. He scores many points because he takes many shots.
Now one can argue that if Kobe took fewer shots, or played with better teammates, his shooting efficiency would rise. One problem with this story, at least with respect to Kobe, is that the empirical evidence does not support the argument. In 2005-06 Kobe took more than 27 field goal attempts per game, a mark that surpasses his previous high of 23.5 in 2002-03. If the story that shooting efficiency falls as shot attempts rises were to hold in the case of Kobe, then 2005-06 should be his least efficient season.
If we look at points per field goal attempt – which is calculated by subtracting free throws made from total points scored and then dividing by field goals attempted [(PTS-FTM)/FGA]– we see that Kobe was able to score 0.98 points per field goal attempt in 05-06. Relative to his career, this is not his lowest level of efficiency. In fact, in 2005-06 Kobe had the highest shooting efficiency of his career. In other words, when Kobe had Shaq and he shot less, his efficiency was actually lower. This is of course not conclusive evidence that efficiency doesn’t improve when players shoot less, but the Kobe evidence doesn’t support that story.
Does this mean Kobe was the best player in the league last season? Well, the appropriate comparison is not Kobe to himself, but Kobe to other players. As I noted last month, relative to the other MVP candidates, Kobe is still one of the least efficient scorers. Again, this is relative to other MVP candidates. Relative to the all players in the league, he is about average in shooting efficiency.
If we go beyond shooting efficiency and consider a player’s total contribution to wins, we see evidence that Kobe is a great player, although not the most productive player in the league. Overall he ranked 17th in Wins Produced. This means he was still very, very good. Just not the very, very best.
By the way, points-per-field goal attempt is not one of our inventions. I first read about points-per-field goal attempt – as it was calculated above – in a piece written by the ever-brilliant Rob Neyer in 1996. And you thought Rob only knew baseball.
– DJ
6 responses so far ↓
Harold Almonte // May 30, 2006 at 7:22 am
I think in all sports the goal and the money is TO WIN, not to have the better efficiency or percentage (Ortiz, Pujols or Alex?). Basketball is not like baseball where one guy performance is a big difference. In basket just one man doesn´t win games, he needs qualified and complemented teammates, coachs, and systems well performed. But, in basketball every position is not the same determinant. There are just one shooting guard in the list of the 20 greatest players of the game. A shooting star alone don´t carry teams to championships, because shooting is not all the game (in low pace teams is worse). I supose this could be the diference between Nash, Kobe or Garnett teams results.
Harold Almonte // May 30, 2006 at 5:20 pm
A shooting guard will never have a better shooting efficiency than a front court player, because he shoots from longer distances. To be a great penetrator, it requires big athletic efforts or energy loss. He will never block or rebound more, or wouldn´t, because his highness. Would have more turnovers because drives the ball more to make a play. Would have less assists than point guards, and maybe a poorer shot decision too. He needs to run faster than everybody to make fast breaks, and to earn hype and publicity, makes some acrobacies.
To be a top 10 player (in stats ratings), a shooting guard needs to be, by far, the best of his position, and a super athlete.
P.D. Sorry for my bad english. I´m not american, I´m spanish speaker.
Harold Almonte // May 31, 2006 at 6:37 am
As you can see in drafts, point guards and centers worth more – that´s an empirical basketball knowledge that can be expressed in numbers I though. This is the pattern in which everybody wants to build a team, another pattern is more difficult to win. Jordan broke the patterns, but Jordan had other intangibles above physicals that Kobe or another Wing Guard doesn´t have. Kobe needs a center to win it all, Jordan did not, neither Nash.
Harold Almonte // May 31, 2006 at 6:40 pm
All this means that Teams wich first scoring option is a shooting guard, will suffer more – diminishing marginal return? and need, to compensate: a better defense (chicago) or accelerate the pace of the game, and execute very well their systems (much of the time princeton or triangle)..
Harold Almonte // June 1, 2006 at 5:18 am
I forgot, will need also more second chances = offensive rebounds = a Rodman !! But can be 15 rebounds more valuable than 30 points? a rebound is a potential score but two points is a score. Who is more valuable, the scorer or the creator of the possesion to score? these are point of views that stats can´t decide. Can be Rodman more valuable than Jordan? A whole season?…I don´t think so, but a final serie, if the other team scoring threat is a power foward, an is totally stopped by Rodman, then maybe.
The final word is like the book says “in a win situation scorer shooters are overrated and role players are underrated”. There are players that just need to lift their arms to score, but others need to drive and jump over three people to do the same, but that is funny and stats don´t say nothing about fun, and the NBA is a entertainment bussiness too.
Harold Almonte // June 1, 2006 at 3:51 pm
To compare a scorer specialist with a role player, is like compare a pitcher with a batter. You need both and good in a team.