Should Fouled Shots be included as FGA?

[rrravenred]

A shot on a foul (unless it goes) isn't counted as a shot opportunity per se but is converted into two foul shots. I was wondering whether people felt there is a benefit in counting these "shots" within a player's FGA in terms of statistical analysis and how would the inclusion of missed foul shots affect calculations of shooting efficiency, especially when you can separate non-shooting foul shots (which are primarily outside a player's control) with shooting foul shots (which, on the whole, are).

[wiLQ]

A shot on a foul (unless it goes) isn't counted as a shot opportunity per se but is converted into two foul shots. I was wondering whether people felt there is a benefit in counting these "shots" within a player's FGA in terms of statistical analysis and how would the inclusion of missed foul shots affect calculations of shooting efficiency, especially when you can separate non-shooting foul shots (which are primarily outside a player's control) with shooting foul shots (which, on the whole, are).

IMHO there won't be any benefit because you can easily add FTA to FGA anyway ;-)
What's the difference in which column you can find shots with fouls?
BTW, you can separate non-shooting fouls without aforementioned change and I don't agree with your premise about control. Why do you think players have control over one and not over other type? Aren't both very dependent of refs' interpretation?

[Doctor MJ]

Well the truth of the matter is that you want to know both FG% and the actually true TS%, so simply counting the fouled shot as a FGA would help with some data, but destroy other data. What I want is more nuanced scorekeeping.

If you're asking whether all things being the same effort-wise, would I rather they make this switch even knowing the problems? Yes, because knowing the true TS% is more important than anything else.

[rrravenred]

A shot on a foul (unless it goes) isn't counted as a shot opportunity per se but is converted into two foul shots. I was wondering whether people felt there is a benefit in counting these "shots" within a player's FGA in terms of statistical analysis and how would the inclusion of missed foul shots affect calculations of shooting efficiency, especially when you can separate non-shooting foul shots (which are primarily outside a player's control) with shooting foul shots (which, on the whole, are).

IMHO there won't be any benefit because you can easily add FTA to FGA anyway

Well you do get foul shots which don't result from a shooting action, remember (especially during late-game when fouls are strategic). So it's not a total analogue.

What's the difference in which column you can find shots with fouls?
BTW, you can separate non-shooting fouls without aforementioned change and I don't agree with your premise about control. Why do you think players have control over one and not over other type? Aren't both very dependent of refs' interpretation?

Of course they are, but a player who is fouled whilst jab-stepping on the perimeter and gets two foul shots ISN'T the same as a slasher to the bsaket who goes for the "impossible" shot pretty much as they know they've been fouled.

[rrravenred]

DoctorMJ, that was sort of what I was asking. I know the fouls calculation in TS% is an estimation (which I seem to recall ElGee demonstrated was a reasonable approximation), but as to whether the ratio of such shots varies greatly between players would be a nice wrinkle to have in an analysis of offensive effectiveness.

One reason I ask is there was a Corey Maggette game where he scored something ridiculous like 20 points on 2 recorded FGA. Now Maggette's a well-known foul-magnet (despite his otherwise boneheaded offensive play) and I was wondering how relatively valuable this aspect of play is...

[wiLQ]

Well you do get foul shots which don't result from a shooting action, remember (especially during late-game when fouls are strategic). So it's not a total analogue.

DoctorMJ, that was sort of what I was asking. I know the fouls calculation in TS% is an estimation (which I seem to recall ElGee demonstrated was a reasonable approximation), but as to whether the ratio of such shots varies greatly between players would be a nice wrinkle to have in an analysis of offensive effectiveness.

Am I wrong or you just need for each player a difference between shooting fouls drawn and non-shooting fouls drawn?

[rrravenred]

Well the point at which they become two foul shots is independent of the nature of the fouls. You can have a non-shooting foul in the first minute and no shots, or have a non-shooting foul a considerable time later and it IS two shots.

[Doctor MJ]

DoctorMJ, that was sort of what I was asking. I know the fouls calculation in TS% is an estimation (which I seem to recall ElGee demonstrated was a reasonable approximation), but as to whether the ratio of such shots varies greatly between players would be a nice wrinkle to have in an analysis of offensive effectiveness.

One reason I ask is there was a Corey Maggette game where he scored something ridiculous like 20 points on 2 recorded FGA. Now Maggette's a well-known foul-magnet (despite his otherwise boneheaded offensive play) and I was wondering how relatively valuable this aspect of play is...

iirc, Hoopdata has good data on this, and it doesn't vary that dramatically, so you can ask, practically, how much it matters.

That said, it should also be pointed out the damage the FG% centric focus has done to non-stat basketball observers. It's one thing to say us savvy folks can adjust, and another thing to say having the ability to adjust means that proper adjustments are always made.

I personally don't think there's much doubt that if true TS% were printed with every box score 50 years ago, Wilt would have tried harder on his free throws.