6 ms·
shot percentage is a pretty arbitrary stat. a .350 batting average is also very good. a .900 hockey goalsave percentage is abysmal. to keep with the sports meta
by huac 11y ago
shot percentage is a pretty arbitrary stat. a .350 batting average is also very good. a .900 hockey goalsave percentage is abysmal. to keep with the sports metaphor, you can always move your goalposts.
- phamilton 11y agoApples to apples shot percentage is a great stat. My biggest complaint with Kobe is that he scored a lot of points because he took a lot of shots. Last night for example, he took ~60% of shots from the field for his team which accounted for ~55% (ignoring FTs). In other words, the expected return on his shot was lower than the rest of his team. Now, FTs change that story a bit, but even in the best case scenario he breaks even with his team. Kobe was a great leader on the court, which is what allowed him to get away with shooting more shots than the rest of his team combined on a regular basis. He also had this "The Lakers are built around Kobe" team structure that made that the expectation.
- balls187 11y ago> My biggest complaint with Kobe is that he scored a lot of points because he took a lot of shots. Isn't that the point of basketball?
- huac 11y agonot all shots are created equal - the "long 2" has a lower expected value than taking a few steps back for a 3-pointer, or finishing at the rim for an easier 2 we can't really hold kobe's last game against him imo - he's definitely been a ballhog but if it's his last game he should have the opportunity to shoot until his arms fall off
- phamilton 11y agoI thought it was a wonderful and fitting final game. Kobe playing like he has his whole career. It was great.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- phamilton 11y agoThe point is to make shots, not just take them. EDIT: There's roughly a finite number of shots a team can take in a game. If one player takes most of the shots, then sure they will score a lot of points. But are they maximizing team points? If other members of the team have a higher shooting percentage then taking less shots and passing the ball around will be advantageous.
- balls187 11y agoThe point is to out score your opponent.
- phamilton 11y agoAs a team. Not as an individual. Kobe taking 50 shots and going for 40+ is orthogonal to the team winning.
- balls187 11y agoLakers win-loss record w/ Kobe Bryant (up to 2013): Regular Season: 878-468 (.652) Post Season: 137-89 (.606) There is a strong correlation between Kobe Bryant's scoring, and winning Laker's seasons.
- phamilton 11y agoKobe Bryant being integral to the Laker's success is absolutely correct. The Laker's made the strategic decision to structure everything around him and it worked well. No doubt that would have failed with a less talented individual. However, it is important to view his accomplishments in that light. He scored 40+ points in games because the team basically said "Let's have Kobe score 40+ points today". Because of that, his absolute point totals aren't great markers for individual talent.
- balls187 11y agoI wonder if on some forum for Basketball fans somewhere, some folks are sitting around discussing PG's impact on technology and startups.
- hinkley 11y agoThe point of basketball is to sell tickets and paraphernalia, and he's got that part covered. I'm sure the owners are perfectly happy. </cynic>
- st3v3r 11y agoIt's a team sport, though. There's more players than Kobe out there.
- balls187 11y agoHow many of those players are as skilled as Kobe? The biggest knock people seem to have against Kobe is that unlike Jordan, he didn't elevate the game of his teammates.
- aljones 11y agoWhich I find to be a pretty weird idea. The list of players that played their best while playing with Kobe is long and varied.
- justinv 11y agoI mean, I would argue that last night is an outlier. The game plan was to give the ball to Kobe, they wanted him to shoot. Look at his career and I think it's a different story.
- guelo 11y agoVCs win with an average hit percentage of .100. A lucky lottery player would win with an average of .0000001.
- noxToken 11y agoIt's only arbitrary when using it against non-comparable stats. For example, comparing shot percentage to goal save percentage is pointless, because they measure completely different stats. A quick search shows that an NHL team will generally get around 30 shots per game. If your goal save percentage is about 45%, then you're not going to have a career much longer when the rest of the league hovers around 94%.