YogurtProducer wrote:This is ignoring PGs have the ball in their hands more, and their shots are more likely to be self created than any of the other positions. That in turn is going to lead to lower efficiency even simply from late clock bail out situations in which guards are typically more able to get a shot off (even a bad one).
Yes, and that primarily affects the ones who are smaller and less athletic, weaker shooters, etc.
Absolutely, they tend to have the ball in their hands more and lean in towards a lower proportion of assisted buckets, but I think the other things I mentioned are more important factors. Particularly since there are guys at other positions who have similar/greater loads and do better. Size matters. And given the shot volume of the guys we're talking about in many cases, other things emerge, you know?
Like i showed before - league average efficiency is not a good indicator to determine anything.
Disagree. I think it's a pretty strong benchmark for whether or not it makes sense to use a guy in a volume role.
It is way more relevant to compare players to other players in similar situations at similar positions. Rudy Gobert is one of the leagues more efficient players, but we all know he is a horrible offensive player.
Sure, but his shooting volume is low for a reason.
Both Green and GObert (and guys like that) boost up the league average TS%, so it isn't fair to say someone is league average in TS% like it is a bad thing. Being higher volume and still hitting that average is a good thing, not a bad thing.
It's an okay thing, depending on context.
It is only the elites of the league who have high volume and the 60+TS%'s.
Sure. But this is a clear illustration of WHY you don't want to run your volume through a small guy, unless he's a Brunson-level or better scorer.
If you're taking 9 FGA/g, you're probably not harming your team overmuch if you're at 56% TS. It isn't great, but you're not shooting too much, so the difference between you and that 8 FGA/g center who doesn't score except on spoon-fed lobs and ORBs isn't THAT much per game, particularly if you're contributing in other ways.
If you're De'Aaron Fox? No, you should stop shooting so much, 100%, because you're a poor option in volume, absolutely. If you're Chris Paul at 8 FGA/g and less than 30 mpg, then yeah, your 58% TS is nice, but again, lower impact and only so meaningful, for sure.
No participation trophies for guys who shoot too much at poor efficiency. Being a little better relative to the least-efficient position in the game isn't a justification for high volume.
Now again, what's high-volume? Quick isn't a high-volume guy, so him flirting with league-average isn't a problem. It also isn't "seriously good," it's just solid. And in the context of our crap offense, his presence was greatly missed last year because of our overall dearth of scoring ability, certainly.
