The Northcyde JumpShot Index

[TheNorthCydeRises]

The great difference, as you point out, both players scored the same number of points

BUT the player who shot 4-12 from the 3 point range left 8 rebounds out there for

the opponent to grab (potentially) and score for the opponent while the guy who

shot 6-12 from the 2 point range scored the same number of points AND left 6 rebounds

out there for the opponent to grab.

So, the real question that we have is: Who gets the rebound? If you have a great

rebounding team, it may not matter very much BUT if you have a poor rebounding

team, the guy shooting all those 3's may cause a lot of problems.

:angel19:

(( DING . . DING . . DING . . DING . . DING ))

( Talking like a gameshow host: )

"GrayMule . . you win a BRAND NEW CAAAAARRRRRRRR"

[CBAreject]

What is the Northcyde Jump Shot Index ( NJSI )?

The NJSI is compiled by adding what a player shot from 2 point range via non-inside shots, to what a player shot from 3-point range. Those percentages are then added together, to give an indication of how well a player shoots from the outside.

For example, If a player shot .419 from 2 point range via non-inside shots, and .364 from 3-point range, his NJSI would be .783

To qualify to be listed on the NJSI, a player must have:

- had 65% of his total shot attempts be non-inside shots

- scored at least 7.5 points a game from these shots

- had at least 10% of his shots come from 3-point range

* NOTE #1: Exceptions will be made to add star players who may not qualify, or well known shooters who may not have the required 7.5 points per game from the outside. I'm not trying to give the NJSI for a player like JJ Redick, because he doesn't score enough from the outside per game, to qualify. ( LOL . . although his NJSI is .732 - - - and you'll see why his .732 index number keeps him on the bench. )

* NOTE #2: This is NOT an indicator of how great of an overall player that a certain player is. It does, however, give you insight on which guys can consistently make jumpshots, and what guys struggle to make them, for whatever reason.

When you see a player's name typed in GREEN, it indicates that he is close enough ( within .010 of the next category ) to be considered to move up into the next category. Next to a player's index number, you'll also see how many points he scored from non-inside shots in parenthesis. Hawks players are in BOLD.

Wow, this is really, really bad northcyde. You can't just ADD two numbers together that could have very different intrinsic values/magnitudes.

ESPN has an eFG% or effective field goal percentage, where they adjust 3 pt attempts by multiplying by 1.5. The formula is this:

(FGm + 3pm*.5)/FGa

The obvious and horrific errors in your "formula", as I'm sure others have pointed out are that

1) 3 ptr percentage points are worth more than 2ptr percentage points (any time one value is worth more than another, you MUST weight them to combine them).

2) the fact that players take very different ratios of 2 pt shots to 3 pt shots across the league renders the "statistic" useless for comparison

For example, if Kwame Brown it 1 out of 1 3 ptrs and 500 out of 1000 2 ptrs, his NJSI would be 1.500.

Edited July 3, 2009 by CBAreject

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Wow, this is really, really bad northcyde. You can't just ADD two numbers together that could have very different intrinsic values/magnitudes.

ESPN has an eFG% or effective field goal percentage, where they adjust 3 pt attempts by multiplying by 1.5. The formula is this:

(FGm + 3pm*.5)/FGa

The obvious and horrific errors in your "formula", as I'm sure others have pointed out are that

1) 3 ptr percentage points are worth more than 2ptr percentage points (any time one value is worth more than another, you MUST weight them to combine them).

2) the fact that players take very different ratios of 2 pt shots to 3 pt shots across the league renders the "statistic" useless for comparison

For example, if Kwame Brown it 1 out of 1 3 ptrs and 500 out of 1000 2 ptrs, his NJSI would be 1.500.

LOL . . it's like some of you keep overlooking the obvious parameters that I've set up, to be able to qualify to be listed on the NJSI.

I clearly said that:

- 65% of his total shots have to be jumpshots.

- at least 10% of his total shots, must be from 3-point range.

That means that I would NEVER include a guy like Kwame Brown on the NJSI, because he doesn't shoot nearly enough outside shots to even have this be a factor.

I know exactly what the eFG is. All I'm saying is that the eFG can skew a person's efffectiveness of how he really shoots from the outside, because of the 1.5 points given to every made 3-point shot.

The prime example of this, is comparing Ron Artest to Marvin Williams.

His eFG on his jumpshot is higher than Marvin's . . . ( .472 to .449 in favor of Artest )

But when you look at the numbers closer, you'll see something.

Marvin shot .355 from 3-point range . . but shot .399 on 2-point jumpshots.

Artest shot .399 from 3-point range . . but was only a .343 on 2-point jumpshots ( making m one of the worst 2-point jumpshot shooters in the league, for a guy that scores a decent number of points. Believe it or not, he's almost as bad as Josh Smith from that range . . who comes in at .322 )

Yet, because of Artest's high number of 3-point makes . . . his eFG is higher.

But in reality, he's missing a ton of outside shots, no matter where he shoots it from.

That's where the NJSI comes in. Now I could easily do this more accurately, and just figure out exactly what a guy shot on 3-point jumpshots ( total wise . . like 12 - 30 ) . . and add that to what he shot on 2-point jumpshots ( total wise . . like 48 - 110 ) . . and then just give the correct percentage on what he shot from the outside.

In this case, it would be 60 - 140 = .429 . . . his eFG would be .471 though.

I like the NJSI better, because if they meet the parameters I give before calculating this, I just add the 2-point jumpshot and 3-point jumpshots together, to come up with the index number. Then I have my set categories that I place guys in, to indicate what type of outside shooter they are.

So while Artest has a far better eFG jumpshot percentage than Marvin, under the NJSI, it's . .

Marvin: .754

Artest: .742

It's simply a different way of looking at this, without the eFG inflating what a guy actually shoots. Like Gray Mule explained brilliantly from my example . . if player A goes 6 - 12 from 2 point jumpers . . and player B goes 4 - 12 from 3 point jumpers . . they both score 12 points and they both have a 50% eFG on their jumpshot.

But the difference, is that player B has missed 2 more shots, possibly giving the opponent 2 extra possessions to score, without his team scoring.

Like I asked the others . . go through my NJSI list of players, and the categories I've placed them in. Is there anyone that you would think that is "out of place" as far as the category that they're in?

If my system is so flawed, why does it accurately reflect how these guys really shoot from the outside, and how consistent or inconsistent they are?

It's not a single person that has answered that question yet. Probably because Crawford rates so low on the NJSI.

Edited July 3, 2009 by northcyde

[CBAreject]

Wow, this is really, really bad northcyde. You can't just ADD two numbers together that could have very different intrinsic values/magnitudes.

ESPN has an eFG% or effective field goal percentage, where they adjust 3 pt attempts by multiplying by 1.5. The formula is this:

(FGm + 3pm*.5)/FGa

The obvious and horrific errors in your "formula", as I'm sure others have pointed out are that

1) 3 ptr percentage points are worth more than 2ptr percentage points (any time one value is worth more than another, you MUST weight them to combine them).

2) the fact that players take very different ratios of 2 pt shots to 3 pt shots across the league renders the "statistic" useless for comparison

For example, if Kwame Brown it 1 out of 1 3 ptrs and 500 out of 1000 2 ptrs, his NJSI would be 1.500.

LOL . . it's like some of you keep overlooking the obvious parameters that I've set up, to be able to qualify to be listed on the NJSI.

I clearly said that:

- 65% of his total shots have to be jumpshots.

- at least 10% of his total shots, must be from 3-point range.

That means that I would NEVER include a guy like Kwame Brown on the NJSI, because he doesn't shoot nearly enough outside shots to even have this be a factor.

I know exactly what the eFG is. All I'm saying is that the eFG can skew a person's efffectiveness of how he really shoots from the outside, because of the 1.5 points given to every made 3-point shot.

The prime example of this, is comparing Ron Artest to Marvin Williams.

His eFG on his jumpshot is higher than Marvin's . . . ( .472 to .449 in favor of Artest )

But when you look at the numbers closer, you'll see something.

Marvin shot .355 from 3-point range . . but shot .399 on 2-point jumpshots.

Artest shot .399 from 3-point range . . but was only a .343 on 2-point jumpshots ( making m one of the worst 2-point jumpshot shooters in the league, for a guy that scores a decent number of points. Believe it or not, he's almost as bad as Josh Smith from that range . . who comes in at .322 )

Yet, because of Artest's high number of 3-point makes . . . his eFG is higher.

But in reality, he's missing a ton of outside shots, no matter where he shoots it from.

That's where the NJSI comes in. Now I could easily do this more accurately, and just figure out exactly what a guy shot on 3-point jumpshots ( total wise . . like 12 - 30 ) . . and add that to what he shot on 2-point jumpshots ( total wise . . like 48 - 110 ) . . and then just give the correct percentage on what he shot from the outside.

In this case, it would be 60 - 140 = .429 . . . his eFG would be .471 though.

I like the NJSI better, because if they meet the parameters I give before calculating this, I just add the 2-point jumpshot and 3-point jumpshots together, to come up with the index number. Then I have my set categories that I place guys in, to indicate what type of outside shooter they are.

So while Artest has a far better eFG jumpshot percentage than Marvin, under the NJSI, it's . .

Marvin: .754

Artest: .742

It's simply a different way of looking at this, without the eFG inflating what a guy actually shoots. Like Gray Mule explained brilliantly from my example . . if player A goes 6 - 12 from 2 point jumpers . . and player B goes 4 - 12 from 3 point jumpers . . they both score 12 points and they both have a 50% eFG on their jumpshot.

But the difference, is that player B has missed 2 more shots, possibly giving the opponent 2 extra possessions to score, without his team scoring.

Like I asked the others . . go through my NJSI list of players, and the categories I've placed them in. Is there anyone that you would think that is "out of place" as far as the category that they're in?

If my system is so flawed, why does it accurately reflect how these guys really shoot from the outside, and how consistent or inconsistent they are?

It's not a single person that has answered that question yet. Probably because Crawford rates so low on the NJSI.

Oh this is so bad. Where do I begin?

First of all, your trivial analysis of 2 ptrs vs 3 ptrs (that "missing more shots" is bad) is just that--trivial. A player who shoots effectively from 3 pt range stretches the defense, so making 3's is more valuable in that sense.

Jump shots in general have drawbacks, since they typically are hit at a lower percentage, are offensively rebounded at a lower percentage, and players get fouled less frequently on them. However, teams do offensively rebound *some* of those misses, and I bet it's safe to assume that 3 ptrs and 2 ptr jump shots are offensively rebounded at the same rate. 3 ptrs may be rebounded more frequently by the shooting team because they tend to be longer rebounds, negating box outs, but let's ignore that for now. Anyway, a player who scores 12 pts on 12 3 pt attempts gives his team 2 more chances to procure a rebound than a player who scores 12 pts on 12 2 pt attempts.

Your argument that the 12 2-pt attempts are better because of fewer misses is horrifically flawed. The opposing team gets the same number of possessions either way. If you make a shot, guess what? The opponent gets possession. Let's assume that the shooting team gets zero offensive rebounds...

12 2-pt attempts with 6 makes result in 12 pts for the shooting team, 6 rebounds for the other team and 12 possessions for the other team.

12 3-pt attempts with 4 makes result in 12 pts for the shooting team, 8 rebounds for the other team, and 12 possessions for the other team.

The only difference is the number of rebounds for the opponent, not the number of points or number of possessions.

If you want to factor in fast break points, that's a different matter, but fast break baskets are less likely when the guards are already back beyond the 3 pt line, and when the rebound goes out long, giving the defense time to set up. They happen most frequently when the offensive team crashes the boards, and a short rebound leads to a long outlet pass.

Now, if you assume that the shooting team rebounds 1/2 of its shots (generous, but easy to work with), you get this scenario

12 3 pt attempts with 4 makes result in 12 pts for the shooting team, 4 rebounds and 4 additional possessions for the shooting team, and 8 possessions for the opponent.

12 2-pt attempts with 6 makes result in 12 pts for the shooting team, 3 rebounds and 3 addional possessions for the shooting team, and 9 possessions for the opponent.

I could go on, but this just shows you why nobody wants to "go through your parameters". It's just a bad stat you've affixed your name to, and nobody is going to give it any credence. I don't want to discourage you from trying, but realize you'll be up against people with a lot more statistical knowledge and experience than you, so you're going to receive some criticism for bad statistical work.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

I'm not worried about being critized for the Northcyde Jump Shot Index. People question just about every stat, and how it relates to a player, or his impact on a game in relation to that stat.

- the eFG is criticized

- the PER is criticized

- the TS% is criticized

- the EFF is criticized

So it's only natural that the NJSI will be criticized. You STILL haven't addressed the main issue though.

IF the NJSI is so "statistically flawed", why does it give an accurate representation of how these guys shoot jumpshots? Matter of fact, let me drive home the point of the NJSI further, by using a player that Woody "gave up on" . . . and that's ACIE LAW.

Acie doesn't quite qualify to be on the NJSI, because 63% of his shots last year, were jumpers. But the NJSI is also accurate, if a player has 20% of his jumpshots being 3-pointers . . instead of the 10% 3-point minimum of all shots, that the NJSI is based on.

So why didn't Acie play more, seeing that Woody has a guard oriented system? Well, I've already documented just how horrible of a start he got off to the regular season last year, in a thread about Acie few weeks back, when the Acie trade was first done. But let's look at it from the NJSI perspective.

Acie shot .310 on 3-point jumpshots

Acie shot .241 on 2-point jumpshots ( a percentage far lower than Smoove on his 2-point jumpshots )

That means that Acie in the NBA, couldn't even hit the shot that he made a living off of in college . . the mid-range pull up jumper.

So that gives Acie an NJSI of .551 for the 08 - 09 season. . . . which is far below the .699 index number, that is considered horrible. That's just one of the reasons why he didn't play folks.

So you and anyone else can talk about how "bad" or how "flawed" the statistical analysis is. But as long as I use the parameters correctly on players that take jumpers from both 2 and 3 point range . . . the NJSI DOES NOT LIE!!!

Edited July 6, 2009 by northcyde

[NineOhTheRino]

Your index looks promising. May I ask where are you getting your statistical data from?

Edited July 6, 2009 by NineOhTheRino

[TheNorthCydeRises]

You're index looks promising. May I ask where are you getting your statistical data from?

I can do this 2 ways Nine.

The easy way, is to use the chart that 82games.com has done for most of the main scoring players on each team.

http://www.82games.com/0809/FGSORT7.HTM

Sometimes to find data on different players, you may have to highlight a different category, in order for that player to show up. But as long as the player qualifies under the parameters that I listed at the start of this thread, I simply add the 2-point jumpshot percentage and the 3-point jumpshot percentage . . to get my index number.

Then I place the index number in the appropriate "shooting" category, also listed at the beginning of the thread.

For a guy like Acie though, I'll have to do it the hard way, to figure out what a guy shot on 2-point jumpshots.

But as long as I know . .

- the total shots a player takes and makes

- the total amount of 3-point shots a player takes and makes

- and the percentage of shots that he took that are considered "inside shots"

. . I can use those numbers, to see what he shot on his 2-point jumpers. Once I get the percentage ( and if he qualifies under the parameters ), I can calculate his NJSI.

The key is to do it for guys that routinely take 2-point and 3-point jumpers.

No stat is perfect. But when you look at that list of players that I did the NJSI for initially ( including the Hawk players ), I don't think there's too much argument that the NJSI didn't accurately place those players in the right category ( as far as their jumpshootiing goes ).

And once again, the NJSI is NOT a reflection of how good of an overall player a guy it. It simply is a measure of how consistent or inconsistent his jumper is . . regardless if he takes tough shots, or wide open shots.