Shot Quality metrics

gt24

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
114
In thinking about this more, I suspect these charts classify good shots/bad shots independent of the shooter. In an earlier chart posted by this Twitter account Moses was in a quadrant of “should shoot more 3 pointers”.

So part of it might be we have lineups whose range doesn’t extend to the 3 point line, and part of it might be settling for longer 2s instead of driving closer or passing out to the perimeter for what is considered a better shot.
The OP graphic from the "Shot Quality" site ranks us 1st in the ACC in offensive shot quality and 14th in the nation for overall shot quality (off & def). It includes all games this season. And to your point above, I believe I read that it factors in individual shooting skills/stats in its determination of what qualifies as a quality shot. Also, it includes a separate column for Rim & 3 Rate (i.e. not mid-range or long 2s) which shows that GT is at 70%, which also ranks 1st in the ACC.

Those "Shot Quality" stats/rankings seem to indicate that we are running offenses/sets that get us great shots and the players are executing the offenses/sets well.
 

alagold

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,341
Location
Huntsville,Al
This generally is a better shooting team that normal espon FTs.
otoh--On DEF I think it curious that we are #1 in steals and other teams are shooting a hi % vs us sometimes.Maybe we are taking chances to get steals?. or they are getting easy put-backs off Off rebs.
 

slugboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
4,599
In thinking about this more, I suspect these charts classify good shots/bad shots independent of the shooter. In an earlier chart posted by this Twitter account Moses was in a quadrant of “should shoot more 3 pointers”.

So part of it might be we have lineups whose range doesn’t extend to the 3 point line, and part of it might be settling for longer 2s instead of driving closer or passing out to the perimeter for what is considered a better shot.
I think that this chart is comparing our shooting success for our shots vs the overall effective field goal percentage (shooting percentage, plus half extra if it's for 3) for that region of the court. Directly under the basket will be high because it's a high percentage two. (60% of 2 = 1.2 points). The top of the arc is a higher percentage 3, so 40%*3 = 1.2. 1 foot in is 41%*2 = 0.8. So "good shots" means that your general NCAA player gets good value from shooting there.
Midrange is not that much of a better percentage than 3, but less points. There are better percentage shots at certain points along the arc.
"Good shooters, bad shots" means that we're taking a slightly higher percentage shot one foot inside the arc than the 1% worse shot outside the arc that's worth more points.
So, we might have a better percentage than most teams on midrange shots, but we'd be in a lot better shape if we were taking shots under the rim or outside the arc.

@gt24 you and I just said the opposite thing, and the axis on that chart has us low on shot selection but high on shooting ability. I would think that would be what I said, but it'd be nice to see what measures they're actually using. I've just seen the Twitter account. If you've got something deeper, shoot me a link.
 

BeeRBee

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
161
I think that this chart is comparing our shooting success for our shots vs the overall effective field goal percentage (shooting percentage, plus half extra if it's for 3) for that region of the court. Directly under the basket will be high because it's a high percentage two. (60% of 2 = 1.2 points). The top of the arc is a higher percentage 3, so 40%*3 = 1.2. 1 foot in is 41%*2 = 0.8. So "good shots" means that your general NCAA player gets good value from shooting there.
Midrange is not that much of a better percentage than 3, but less points. There are better percentage shots at certain points along the arc.
"Good shooters, bad shots" means that we're taking a slightly higher percentage shot one foot inside the arc than the 1% worse shot outside the arc that's worth more points.
So, we might have a better percentage than most teams on midrange shots, but we'd be in a lot better shape if we were taking shots under the rim or outside the arc.

@gt24 you and I just said the opposite thing, and the axis on that chart has us low on shot selection but high on shooting ability. I would think that would be what I said, but it'd be nice to see what measures they're actually using. I've just seen the Twitter account. If you've got something deeper, shoot me a link.
@gt24 was referencing the graphics he started this thread with, from a site called Shot Quality. They apparently have a complex formula, described as follows:
1613713991832.png

I have no idea whether they actually have sufficient data to measure what they claim. However, their result shows that GT is taking very good shots.

I piggybacked into the thread with the charts from a Twitter account called Fifth Factor Plots. I think you reasonably described what I suspect to be their methodology for shot quality/selection, and as you said that method says GT is not taking good shots.

Aside from small sample size issues, one potential reconciliation between the two results could be that Tech is very good at getting shots their players are comfortable with, but that reults in a shot distribution with a lower expected value compared to other teams, based on average shooting percentages.
 

lv20gt

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,767
It's weird to see us and UVA in the best shots on offense and UNC in the best defense. Feels like those should be backwards (based on recent history I mean. This year it makes sense for us)
 

gt24

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
114
I put this in the VT game thread, but maybe it belongs here since plenty of it relates to our offensive efficiency, shooting, shot quality, etc... shout out to @D-man44 for sharing this analytics site first.

https://haslametrics.com/ratings2.php?yr=&tid=141

AO = average opponent

ANALYSIS:
Despite their unexceptional win percentage, Georgia Tech should be regarded as one of the better teams in college hoops. Carrying a record of 12-8, they are currently rated #19 overall (out of 357) in All-Play Percentage this season. They are also ranked by this site as the #3 team (out of 15) in the ACC (average ranking 66.3).

Georgia Tech is one of the very most competent offensive teams in the country. Ranked 18th in offensive efficiency, they'll rack up more than 112 points every 100 trips upcourt vs. AO. Georgia Tech is an excellent shooting team, capable of converting from multiple locations on the court and ranking in the top-50 in three of our four primary field goal categories. They convert 37.8% of their three-pointers (28th in the nation), 72.4% of their near-proximity attempts (third), and 50.0% of their total shots from the field (sixth) vs. AO. Georgia Tech is also deadly accurate at the free throw line. Making 77.7% of their attempts from the stripe, they are ranked 23rd nationally in free throw percentage.

Georgia Tech plays at roughly the same level defensively as they do offensively. The team ranks 48th nationally in defensive efficiency, allowing about 93 points every 100 trips upcourt vs. AO. Georgia Tech thrives on scoring fast and easy points off of steals. They're ranked 11th in potential points off of breakaway steals vs. AO with a rating of 16.42. Georgia Tech is also a superior unit when it comes to preventing opponents from getting to the foul line. With a defensive free throw attempt rate of 19.26 vs. AO, they are currently rated 17th in the country in that category.

Georgia Tech has been playing better basketball in their most recent outings, as evidenced by the team's #35 ranking in positive momentum. On the road, Georgia Tech performs somewhat better than their norm, as the squad is nationally ranked 30th in our away-from-home metric.
 

lauraee

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,109
This generally is a better shooting team that normal espon FTs.
otoh--On DEF I think it curious that we are #1 in steals and other teams are shooting a hi % vs us sometimes.Maybe we are taking chances to get steals?. or they are getting easy put-backs off Off rebs.
I'd mostly blame the Off rebounds.
 

gt24

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
114
Wilkins came to us in 2018. Good to see the work paying off for everyone:

This is a fantastic article. Missed it until today. Thanks for posting. Love it.

Last ~5 years I have felt like the least talked about aspect of Villanova's success has been their 2-foot emphasis. They are masters at under-control paint touches by using 2-foot finishes at the rim and old-school jump-stops (usually followed by kickouts for open 3s).
 
Top