In a recent post, I laid out the framework for developing a Bayesian power ratings model for the NFL using the BUGS/JAGS simulation software. That was a really simple model that essentially amounted to little more than a standard linear regression (or ridge regression). At the end of the article I suggested that one area of improvement would be to take into account turnovers. So, this is my first attempt to do that (at least, the first one that I'm writing about).

# Hand Down, Man Down: New Source of NBA Data Reveals Critical Detail for More Effective Shot Defense

There’s a revolution taking place in NBA analytics driven by new sources and types of data and an increasingly sophisticated application of statistics. As a blogger, I’m always on the lookout for the “next big thing” in NBA analytics. Recently, I have had the opportunity to do some statistical consulting for a start-up company in Seattle trying to establish itself as — you guessed it — the next big thing in NBA analytics. The company is Competitive Analytics Consulting (CAC), and with a combination of proprietary technology and highly trained data analysts, CAC tracks each player during every play of every game, resulting in countless new and relevant stats — some of which you’ve likely always wanted to see in a box score, and others which would never even dawn on you to track, but make perfect sense, after the fact. Of course, there are a couple of other increasingly well-known companies that supply NBA teams with useful (or potentially useful) data, including STATS, Inc. with their SportsVU player and ball tracking technology, and Synergy Sports Technology, which relies on video tracking of various play types.

Knowing what Synergy currently offers, and having had access to CAC’s database for a few months now, I can state for a fact that CAC is tracking stats that are not available anywhere else today. I think of CAC’s software platform (called “Vantage”) as Synergy on PEDs. CAC has given me permission to use some of their never-before-released data in this article, which I will use to highlight just one new factor (“shot defense”) that CAC is tracking. Once you see the data, you will wonder why nobody has done this before (aside from the cost and laborious work involved!). It will also hopefully drive home the message that very soon all 30 teams are going to need these kinds of data just to keep up with the Joneses (or possibly even the Jameses). It’ll simply be the cost of doing business in the NBA.

Shot defense is defined by CAC as the pressure that a defender applies to the shooter. There are 7 possible values:

- OPEN (no defender within 5 feet of player)
- GUARDED (defender within 3 to 5 feet)
- PRESSURED (defender within 3 feet but
**no hand up**) - CONTESTED (defender within 3 feet and
**hand is up**in front of shooter) - ALTERED (defender within 3 feet, hand is up, and shooter is forced to change shooting angle or release point while in air)
- BLOCK (defender blocks shot)
- FOUL (defender fouls shooter)

Only two of those values are currently recorded by the box score or play-by-play data, BLOCK and FOUL. But how many conversations have you had with your buddies about the number of contested shots Kobe Bryant takes compared to, say, a player like Matt Bonner whose job it is to stand in the corner and hit open 3-pt shots? We’ve all had those conversations numerous times, and likewise, NBA decision-makers, scouts, and players know that the shot defense a player faces is a huge factor in his shooting efficiency. Now let’s slice through the data in a few different ways.

I should make it clear that I’m not going to spit out a bunch of numbers in a table and tell you to go read them. I think that one of the critically important aspects of supporting NBA decision-makers is distilling the vast amounts of data in ways that are understandable and actionable for folks that don’t have PhD’s. This is a vision CAC shares, and it often means utilizing new visualization techniques to reduce the dimensions of a problem. The reason I’m prefacing the “data” part of this article with this comment about visualization is that you may find the attached graphics a little intimidating at first. Fear not, they will become second nature once you realize the key points in each one.

The first graphic looks at shot defense on 2-pt shots in matrix or “heat map” form, where the color of each tile represents the efficiency in terms of FG%. White tiles are worse (less efficient) shots and red tiles are better (more efficient) shots. Blocks were not included (0% efficiency by definition). Each row of the matrix represents a play type defined in a similar way to Synergy, except, the observant reader will note the addition of a new play type called “FLASH”, which is when a player receives the ball after cutting sharply toward the perimeter (as opposed to CUT which is defined as moving sharply to the basket). The other play types (TRANS = transition, SPOT-UP, ROLL = screen and roll, POP = screen and pop, OREB = following immediately after an offensive rebound, POST-UP, OFF SCREEN = coming off screen, and ISOLATION) are probably familiar to you, regardless of whether you have used Synergy.

What the data show are, perhaps, striking confirmation of what basketball fans think they already know. As the defender gets closer to the shooter, the shots get less and less efficient. What may surprise you, however, is the difference that just having a hand up can make. Across virtually every play type, having a hand up (CONTEST) vs. not having a hand up (PRESSURE) makes a significant difference. On POST shots, a pressured shot averages 54.3%, whereas a contested shot is only 42.3%. A contested screen and pop is 37.8% on average, compared to 50.5% when the shot is only pressured. That’s over a 10% difference just from the defender putting a hand up. Another important takeaway from the chart is that on several play types, there isn’t much of a drop-off between pressured and guarded, in terms of shooter efficiency. In other words, it doesn’t matter if you’re 5 feet away or 2 feet away, if you don’t have your hand up. **It’s no wonder Mark Jackson’s favorite line is “Hand down, man down!”**** **

The second graphic slices the shot defense data in a different way, namely, as a function of the 24-second shot clock. Instead of comparing all the different play types, we’ll just focus on two, isolation and spot-up. This graphic “bins” the data, one shot a time, into buckets defined for each shot defense value. The data are slightly jittered so you can see all the shots, because otherwise, they would just lie in a straight vertical line. What this graphic allows you to see is a data “fingerprint”, so-to-speak, for each play type. Shots generated via isolation, not surprisingly, tend to fall most often in the contested and pressured bins. Compare that to spot-up shots where the open and guarded bins have a relatively high density of shots compared to the isolation plays. Again, this should not be surprising, but the value is in being able to quantify the data. One last interesting statistic before we move on to the final graphic. You can see the distribution of shots by shot clock time remaining. I bet you’re wondering if the average shot clock time varies as a function of shot defense. Well, yes, it does actually. It turns out that contested shots on average take place with about 2 fewer seconds on the shot clock than open shots. If we remove transition plays (which skew the distribution), contested shots still occur about 1.3 seconds later in the shot clock on average.

For the final graphic, I drilled down to a specific comparison of shot defense faced by LeBron James and Kobe Bryant as a function of the shot clock. This graphic shows the fraction of total shots facing each type of shot defense with a given amount of time remaining on the shot clock. The main feature and difference between the two stars is that Kobe faces a consistently high level of contested shots throughout the shot clock, whereas LeBron displays the more typical pattern of facing increasingly more difficult shot pressure as the shot clock winds down. I’ll leave it to the reader to debate with his or her friends whether this exposes a flaw or greatness in Kobe’s game.

Clearly, I have just scratched the surface of what can be done with these new data. And remember, this is just one new factor that I’ve discussed here. CAC is tracking dozens of other ones that I can’t share right now. The combinations of factors that can be studied and analyzed on every single play are mind-boggling. You know, if I were an up-and-coming basketball player, I might think about taking just enough math in college so that I could understand what guys like me are talking about with all this analytics stuff. Maybe it can give you that extra edge, like shooting another 100 jumpers a day or something. Because I can tell you this, it’s not going away, and it’s only going to get more important over time.

Vantage Basketball currently offers industry-leading data collection and analysis products and services to NBA organizations and media/broadcast companies at www.cacvantage.com. All data presented in this article are used with permission of Vantage Basketball LLC and should not be copied or distributed without its express written consent.

# Starting work on Bayesian football power ratings

The more I learn about Bayesian statistics, the more I want to use the approach in my own sports research. I have found some other football rating systems that use Bayesian methodology (including Ed Kambour and most recently @DSMok1), so most of what I'm doing here is not novel. However, I feel it's important to document new things I'm working on as much as possible, because you can always learn something new from seeing how someone else tackles the same problem. And I usually learn something by forcing myself to write about it. Anyway, that's more or less the pedagogic motivation for this article. In this post, I'll just introduce the framework and starting point for the model and show some initial predictive results from last season. I promise to make this as high-level as possible.

Probability is about calculating the likelihood of a given set of data given some known parameters. The classic example is flipping a coin, which we "know" is equally likely to come up heads or tails. Statistics is essentially the inverse problem (or "inverse probability"), i.e. calculating the likelihood of a parameter or set of parameters lying within a certain range of values, given a known set of data. If you didn't know a coin was "fair", how many flips would it take for you to figure it out? The example I always give to people who know nothing about Bayesian statistics is imagine flipping a coin 10 times, and it comes up heads 8 times. Most people, hopefully, everyone reading this, will know intuitively that just because the coin doesn't come up heads exactly 5 times, it doesn't (necessarily) mean the coin is an unfair one. The purpose of Bayesian statistics, then, is to combine the evidence that a current set of data presents (i.e. 8/10 flips coming up heads) with our "prior knowledge" of the phenomena under study. Figuring out how to do that is where all the math stuff comes in handy, and up until the early 90's, it was actually a very difficult problem to solve in all but a few well-studied "toy" problems, because there was not enough computational power to tackle the really complex models.

Nowadays, any statistical hack like myself can download the necessary software tools for free, and run extremely sophisticated models on a pc or even a laptop (I'm doing this on a MacBook Air) that 20 years ago probably would have required a supercomputer (or two). Unquestionably, the computational tool that kickstarted the widespread Bayesian revolution in statistics over the past two decades (and the one that anyone can download for free), is BUGS, (**B**ayesian inference **U**sing **G**ibbs **S**ampling). I'm using JAGS (Just Another Gibbs Sampler), which is essentially like BUGS, but runs easily within R on a Mac using the package rjags.

The way these programs work is that you enter in the data along with your data model and prior knowledge. The data model and the prior knowledge is typically in the form of a probability distribution. Given all this information, the program crunches through thousands and thousands of simulations of the model with the given set of data (using so-called Monte Carlo methods), which in the end generates a probability distribution for the parameters of the model you are interested in. This is called the "posterior" distribution. Along with that, you can feed in other parameters to the model that you want predicted. Let me show you how it works with the NFL model I've been setting up.

model { for (i in 1:N) { mov[i] ~ dnorm(mov.hat[i], tau1) mov.hat[i] <- b0 + inprod( b[] , x[i,] ) }

This part describes the model for the margin of victory (mov) when two teams face each other. It says that the samples are from a standard normal distribution, the mean of which is given by the difference between the power ratings between the two teams plus home field advantage (b0), and the variance of which will be estimated by the model during the simulation. Think of this as the error that comes with any prediction.

for (i in 1:32) { b[i] ~ dnorm(0, tau2) }

Here, we're setting the prior distribution for the array of 32 coefficients that represents each team's power ratings. It's again a normal distribution, but we specify the mean to be 0 (i.e. we "know" this), and a second variance parameter, tau2, which will also be determined by the simulation.

b0 <- 3 tau1 ~ dexp(0.1) tau2 ~ dexp(0.1)

Here we set the homefield advantage to a "known" constant (as opposed to estimating it from the data), and we set exponential priors on the two variance parameters. What you should note so far is that all we have explicitly said is "known" are that the mean of all team ratings should be zero and the HFA = 3 points, neither of which are controversial assumptions. Everything else is extremely general, and we just wait for the simulation to tell us what the actual parameter values turn out to be.

The data fed into the model consisted of the game results from the regular season. The ratings produced by the simulation were as follows:

Based on the regular season, that looks about right. Looking at a histogram of the distribution of team ratings, it looks normal as would be expected.

Within the simulation, itself, one can make predictions about future events simply by monitoring certain variables of interest. In this case, I set up the simulation to monitor "virtual" matchups between teams that actually met in the post-season. In other words, I used the model based on regular season data to predict (out-of-sample) post-season results. For each game, we can look at the resulting probability distribution. Here's the prediction for SF vs. NYG as an example:

You can see that according to the simulation, the Giants had almost no chance of winning the game. The probability lies almost entirely to the right of zero and is centered around 8.44 points. With hindsight, we can say that either the simulation was ~~wrong~~ incomplete, or the Giants got extremely lucky. A little luck was involved, to be sure, but I think it's safe to say the model is far from perfect at this point. Let's take a look at the predictions for all the post-season games:

So how did the model do overall? Well, to be perfectly honest, not all that great. It beat the spread 6/11 times, but lost big time to the Vegas spreads in terms of error (least squares columns). In non-Giants games, it beat Vegas spreads 6/8 times, but there always seems to be a "hot" team in January, and it doesn't help bettors to realize that only after the SB has been played. Still, this is just scratching the surface of what Bayesian models are capable of doing. As others have pointed out, we can try to build in the effects of turnovers and also try to account for trends within and across seasons. Much remains to be done. Let's go!

# Why you should be excited and nervous to be a Chicago Bulls fan in 2012-13

*I'm endeavoring to do a post for all 30 teams before the season starts on why if I were a fan of that team, I'd be excited and nervous. I'll talk about the great, the good, the bad, and oftentimes, the really ugly.*

The Bulls are on pause. After **Derrick Rose** went down with an ACL tear against Philly in Game 1 of the first round of the Playoffs, not only were Chicago's hopes for a 7th Championship dashed in the short term, but it quickly became clear that this season would be a placeholder for those hopes going forward. Continue reading

# A look at scoring productivity for several "Player of the Century" candidates

This is going to be quick hit, basically just an excuse to put up a cool plot. A while back I developed a relatively simple metric for measuring scoring productivity that combines usage (i.e. volume) and shooting efficiency. I also did some work on aging curves using that metric. Motivated by Dime Mag's naming Kobe Bryant the "Player of the Century" (or, at least, the first 0.12 parts thereof), I thought I'd re-visit my scoring metric, and post aging curves for several of Kobe's potential rivals for that honor. Enjoy, debate, stare blankly, whatever! (*Keep in mind this doesn't account for defense or any aspects of offense aside from scoring.*)

# Why you should be excited and nervous to be a Charlotte Bobcats fan in 2012-13

*I'm endeavoring to do a post for all 30 teams before the season starts on why if I were a fan of that team, I'd be excited and nervous. I'll talk about the great, the good, the bad, and oftentimes, the really ugly.*

Let's get this out of the way. If you're a Bobcats fan, you know there's a steep climb ahead. The good news is that Michael Jordan hired **Rich Cho**, and by doing so, may have finally got the team headed in the right direction. In fact, this was evident to me on Draft Night when they actually took the second best player available in Michael Kidd-Gilchrist. Very few people expected them to do the right thing there, perhaps, because it was unclear who was calling the shots. If you remember, MJ doesn't exactly have a strong record as far as evaluating other people's talent. Continue reading

# Why you should be excited and nervous to be a Brooklyn Nets fan in 2012-13

*I'm endeavoring to do a post for all 30 teams before the season starts on why if I were a fan of that team, I'd be excited and nervous. I'll talk about the great, the good, the bad, and oftentimes, the really ugly.*

No sweep 'til Brooklynnnnn.

First off, sweet logo. Sweet new faux-weatherized steel arena. Even if the Nets remained terrible, fans will have a lot to be excited about in Brooklyn. The good news is the Nets probably won't be terrible. They'll almost surely be quite a bit better than they've been most of the past decade. Continue reading

# Why you should be excited and nervous to be a Boston Celtics Fan in 2012-13

First, and most importantly, you should be excited to be a Celtics fan because you still have **Kevin Garnett**, **Paul Pierce**, and **Rajon Rondo**. Garnett and Pierce are inching ever closer to retirement, but it's pretty clear that each is still in the upper echelon of NBA players. Garnett can still defend and shoot long 2's and Pierce is still one of the game's best offensive threats. As evidence, note that Pierce shot 56.7% TS on 28.1% USG. Only Karl Malone has shot with a higher efficiency on that much volume after age 34. The combined RAPM of Garnett (+5.6), Pierce (+1.8), and Rondo (+1) is +8.4. A team with that rating (for a full 48 mpg) would win about 63 games. Continue reading

# Addendum on Long Twos: Rankings using Multiple Years

Using the same multi-level model as in the last post, but with shooting data compiled since 2000-01 (the oldest year available in Basketball-Reference's PlayIndex+ tool), here are the rankings for current players (defined as having > 25 2-point FGA greater than 18 feet). The "10-YR %-ile" represents the percentile rank of that player among all 728 players since 2001 that had at least 25 long 2-pt FGA. (Astute readers will note that it's really an 11-YR %-ile, and hopefully forgive me for rounding to a nicer sounding number.)

# Stephen Curry is a great shooter, but he ain't *that* great

I know you're already foaming at the mouth after reading the title, but that's the only way I thought I could you lure you in for what follows. Here's a more appropriate title, but one you might have never thought twice about clicking on:

A method for predicting FG% in basketball based on small number of shots

So here's a list of the top 20 players sorted by FG% on long twos (I'm defining a "long two" as 18-23 ft). The data was acquired using the PlayIndex+ tool over at basketball-reference. Here is the exact query, if you want to see the data for yourself.

### Top 20 Players by Maximum-Likelihood Estimate (MLE)

MLE is simply a statistics shorthand for "taking the straight mean" (actually, it means a lot more than that, but for our purposes, I think that's good enough).

PLAYER |
TEAM |
MLE |
FGA |

Stephen Curry |
GSW | 68.30% | 63 |

Steve Novak |
NYK | 59.50% | 37 |

Kurt Thomas |
POR | 53.10% | 64 |

Quincy Pondexter |
MEM | 52.90% | 34 |

Joakim Noah |
CHI | 52.00% | 25 |

Daequan Cook |
OKC | 51.70% | 29 |

Boris Diaw |
TOT | 51.20% | 41 |

Brandon Rush |
GSW | 50.90% | 57 |

Jonas Jerebko |
DET | 50.80% | 61 |

Kevin Garnett |
BOS | 50.20% | 237 |

Kris Humphries |
NJN | 50.00% | 36 |

Yi Jianlian |
DAL | 50.00% | 32 |

Chris Paul |
LAC | 49.60% | 127 |

Michael Beasley |
MIN | 49.30% | 69 |

Tim Duncan |
SAS | 49.10% | 114 |

Kevin Durant |
OKC | 48.80% | 121 |

Brandon Bass |
BOS | 48.70% | 119 |

Anthony Parker |
CLE | 48.60% | 70 |

Dirk Nowitzki |
DAL | 48.60% | 175 |

Charles Jenkins |
GSW | 48.00% | 127 |

The problem we face here is that the sample sizes vary so much between players and some are really small. Is **Yi Jianlian** really a 50% shooter from 18-23 ft? (If he is, somebody should probably sign him already.) What about **Kris Humphries**? Maybe not. Conversely, Dirk shot 48.6% on 175 FGA from this range, which is a larger sample size and about where we might expect him to be. Overall, the pool of 248 players with >25 FGA from 18-23 ft had a mean FG% of roughly 38%.

What can help us "shrink" these estimates closer to the mean is taking into account the variation between players in both FG% and FGA (i.e. sample size). One way to do this is to use a multi-level model (the other is a fully Bayesian approach, which Gelman says is roughly equivalent when there are a large number of "groups" such as this). If you're interested in this type of model, I highly recommend Gelman's "ARM" book.

In R, creating the model basically takes one step:

`twos.mlm=lmer(cbind(FGM,FGA-FGM)~(1|PLAYER),family=binomial(),data=long_twos)`

From that, I get a list of coefficients (called random effects) which can then be converted to our new (hopefully) more predictive FG%'s.

Before I show the new list of players and their estimates, take a look at how the spread of the histogram of FG%'s shrinks when going from the MLE to the multi-level model:

Now here's the top 50 according to their multi-level estimates:

### Top 50 18-23 ft FG%

The column MULTI is the multi-level estimate.

PLAYER |
TEAM |
MLE |
MULTI |
FGA |

Stephen Curry |
GSW | 68.30% | 46.9% | 63 |

Kevin Garnett |
BOS | 50.20% | 45.5% | 237 |

Dirk Nowitzki |
DAL | 48.60% | 43.7% | 175 |

Chris Paul |
LAC | 49.60% | 43.3% | 127 |

Kevin Durant |
OKC | 48.80% | 42.8% | 121 |

Tim Duncan |
SAS | 49.10% | 42.8% | 114 |

Brandon Bass |
BOS | 48.70% | 42.8% | 119 |

Jose Calderon |
TOR | 47.30% | 42.6% | 148 |

Charles Jenkins |
GSW | 48.00% | 42.6% | 127 |

Kurt Thomas |
POR | 53.10% | 42.6% | 64 |

Pau Gasol |
LAL | 47.30% | 42.3% | 129 |

Steve Novak |
NYK | 59.50% | 42.3% | 37 |

LaMarcus Aldridge |
POR | 45.20% | 42.2% | 208 |

Drew Gooden |
MIL | 45.60% | 41.9% | 158 |

Sebastian Telfair |
PHO | 47.50% | 41.9% | 101 |

Jonas Jerebko |
DET | 50.80% | 41.8% | 61 |

Anthony Morrow |
NJN | 46.80% | 41.7% | 109 |

Steve Nash |
PHO | 47.40% | 41.7% | 95 |

Michael Beasley |
MIN | 49.30% | 41.6% | 69 |

Brandon Rush |
GSW | 50.90% | 41.6% | 57 |

Jamal Crawford |
POR | 45.10% | 41.5% | 144 |

Anthony Parker |
CLE | 48.60% | 41.4% | 70 |

Ben Gordon |
DET | 44.30% | 41.3% | 158 |

Nick Young |
TOT | 44.20% | 41.3% | 163 |

Darren Collison |
IND | 46.20% | 41.1% | 91 |

Chris Bosh |
MIA | 44.10% | 41.1% | 152 |

Arron Afflalo |
DEN | 47.20% | 41.1% | 72 |

Klay Thompson |
GSW | 43.70% | 41.0% | 158 |

Boris Diaw |
TOT | 51.20% | 40.9% | 41 |

David West |
IND | 45.60% | 40.9% | 90 |

Quincy Pondexter |
MEM | 52.90% | 40.9% | 34 |

Russell Westbrook |
OKC | 43.50% | 40.8% | 147 |

D.J. White |
CHA | 45.60% | 40.7% | 79 |

Marreese Speights |
MEM | 44.70% | 40.7% | 94 |

Carlos Boozer |
CHI | 45.70% | 40.6% | 70 |

David Lee |
GSW | 44.40% | 40.5% | 90 |

Jarrett Jack |
NOH | 44.40% | 40.5% | 90 |

Kris Humphries |
NJN | 50.00% | 40.4% | 36 |

Steve Blake |
LAL | 47.10% | 40.4% | 51 |

Daequan Cook |
OKC | 51.70% | 40.4% | 29 |

Jared Dudley |
PHO | 43.10% | 40.2% | 109 |

Yi Jianlian |
DAL | 50.00% | 40.2% | 32 |

Jason Smith |
NOH | 43.00% | 40.2% | 107 |

DeMarcus Cousins |
SAC | 42.20% | 40.2% | 147 |

Joakim Noah |
CHI | 52.00% | 40.1% | 25 |

Spencer Hawes |
PHI | 46.00% | 40.1% | 50 |

Grant Hill |
PHO | 43.60% | 40.0% | 78 |

Jason Terry |
DAL | 42.70% | 39.9% | 96 |

Nate Robinson |
GSW | 43.70% | 39.9% | 71 |

Ramon Sessions |
TOT | 43.90% | 39.9% | 66 |

Now it's starting to make more sense. Here's the bottom 50:

### Bottom 50

PLAYER |
TEAM |
MLE |
MULTI |
FGA |

Glen Davis |
ORL | 24.50% | 33.3% | 94 |

John Wall |
WAS | 29.50% | 33.7% | 183 |

Corey Maggette |
CHA | 26.50% | 33.9% | 98 |

Dorell Wright |
GSW | 19.60% | 34.2% | 46 |

Andray Blatche |
WAS | 24.20% | 34.3% | 66 |

Paul George |
IND | 22.80% | 34.3% | 57 |

Markieff Morris |
PHO | 22.20% | 34.3% | 54 |

Ivan Johnson |
ATL | 20.80% | 34.4% | 48 |

Daniel Gibson |
CLE | 21.30% | 34.5% | 47 |

Antawn Jamison |
CLE | 31.30% | 34.8% | 166 |

DeMar DeRozan |
TOR | 32.20% | 34.9% | 205 |

Carlos Delfino |
MIL | 24.00% | 35.0% | 50 |

Paul Pierce |
BOS | 28.90% | 35.0% | 90 |

Josh Howard |
UTA | 28.80% | 35.2% | 80 |

John Lucas |
CHI | 28.60% | 35.2% | 77 |

Byron Mullens |
CHA | 32.80% | 35.3% | 204 |

Austin Daye |
DET | 25.00% | 35.3% | 48 |

Leandro Barbosa |
TOT | 30.80% | 35.4% | 104 |

Tracy McGrady |
ATL | 29.00% | 35.5% | 69 |

C.J. Watson |
CHI | 30.00% | 35.6% | 80 |

Metta World Peace |
LAL | 22.90% | 35.6% | 35 |

Chauncey Billups |
LAC | 20.70% | 35.7% | 29 |

Jeremy Pargo |
MEM | 20.70% | 35.7% | 29 |

Marcus Camby |
TOT | 25.60% | 35.7% | 43 |

Danilo Gallinari |
DEN | 29.40% | 35.7% | 68 |

C.J. Miles |
UTA | 29.20% | 35.7% | 65 |

Lamar Odom |
DAL | 23.50% | 35.8% | 34 |

James Johnson |
TOR | 30.90% | 35.8% | 81 |

Luc Mbah a Moute |
MIL | 20.00% | 35.9% | 25 |

Andrew Goudelock |
LAL | 24.20% | 35.9% | 33 |

Andre Iguodala |
PHI | 32.80% | 35.9% | 122 |

J.J. Hickson |
TOT | 28.30% | 36.1% | 46 |

Brandon Knight |
DET | 32.30% | 36.1% | 93 |

Wesley Johnson |
MIN | 32.30% | 36.1% | 93 |

Jodie Meeks |
PHI | 25.00% | 36.1% | 32 |

Norris Cole |
MIA | 32.20% | 36.1% | 90 |

Derrick Brown |
CHA | 29.60% | 36.1% | 54 |

Monta Ellis |
TOT | 34.40% | 36.2% | 195 |

Dominic McGuire |
GSW | 27.50% | 36.2% | 40 |

Tyreke Evans |
SAC | 33.30% | 36.2% | 120 |

Tyler Hansbrough |
IND | 32.10% | 36.3% | 78 |

Travis Outlaw |
SAC | 28.20% | 36.4% | 39 |

Courtney Lee |
HOU | 32.50% | 36.4% | 83 |

Earl Clark |
ORL | 27.80% | 36.4% | 36 |

Zach Randolph |
MEM | 24.00% | 36.4% | 25 |

Ray Allen |
BOS | 31.70% | 36.5% | 63 |

Danny Granger |
IND | 33.70% | 36.6% | 95 |

Jordan Farmar |
NJN | 30.20% | 36.6% | 43 |

Josh Smith |
ATL | 35.80% | 36.6% | 316 |

Marvin Williams |
ATL | 33.70% | 36.6% | 92 |

### Conclusions

Now, do we have any evidence that **Stephen Curry** is closer to a 46.9% shooter from 18-23 ft rather than truly being a 68.3% shooter according to the 63 shots he took last year? Sure we do! Just go back to 2010-11 when he shot 49.1% on 214 FGA (still great!). Or his rookie season when he shot 47% on 232 FGA (also great!). Now that 46.9% makes a lot more sense, right? (By the way, the title of this post should make some more sense right about now, too.) **Stephen Curry** is a great shooter, he just ain't *that* great.

Just as **Stephen Curry** probably isn't a near-70% shooter on long 2's, **Glen Davis** is probably better than a 25% player on those shots. Indeed, in 2011, Davis shot 35.8% on 226 FGA. And he was a 38.9% in 2010, but on only 36 FGA. You know, it's important to point out that just because a player takes a small number of attempts doesn't necessarily mean he'll be at the top or bottom of lists like this. Sometimes the player will "randomly" fall in the middle, too.

So, hopefully, this made some sense to you. Next time you see an analyst talking about how a player lead the league with an astronomically high FG% on 12 shots of a certain type (say in the 4th quarter of games on the road on Sundays), think about this post. Heck, maybe e-mail the guy a link to it.