Efficient Shooters vs. Creators

[uolj]

So I have been thinking about this for years, and it has come up sporadically during that time in other conversations, but now I finally decided to start a thread about it.

Often, at least in recent Kings history, there are one or two players on the team that are the offensive initiators and creators whose field goal percentages (and overall efficiencies) are average to below average. Meanwhile, there are one or two players on the team who generally don't create offense for themselves or others, but whose field goal percentages (and overall efficiencies) are well above average. The comment is often made to get those efficient players more shots and have the inefficient players take fewer shots.

My question is how realistic is this request? On the surface it seems obvious that doing this would increase offense, but is it easier said than done? How much of a negative effect would there be by taking the ball out of the hands of the initiators? How dramatically would the scoring efficiencies drop if a super-efficient player suddenly got a lot more attempts within the offense?

This obviously applies to the current Kings situation with Martin shooting so well and others not as much (e.g. Artest, Bibby). Feel free to use current or previous Kings as examples since there are plenty (Martin, Miller, Stojakovic, Artest, Bibby, Webber, etc), or other NBA examples. However, I'm more curious about what you all think of the topic in general rather than arguing over any specific player vs player discussions.

 

[diggining]

I think this is a very interesting topic.

I think there are 2 factors at work: the first is that when a player who is very efficient to take more shots, to have a bigger role in the offense, the additional shots taken by the player are usually tougher shots in general than the original set of shots. So, not surprisingly, the shooting %'s go down.

The second factor is a sort of selection effect: we have a tendency to call people shooters vs. creators just because of their effiency on offense. Very often, very efficent players are just as good in creating offense as the so-called "creators"--but we call them shooters instead because that's what we think about when think of their offensive game. Vice-versa for the less efficient players. This, I think, is similar to the "defensive specialist" effect in baseball--we have a tendency to think that a player's defense is better in baseball just because of the player's inability to hit. Actually, if we stick to basketball, we can also see this effect in the "shooter"/"athlete" divide--some shooters are actually quite athletic, but they tend to be considered "shooters" and their athleticism often gets underrated just because they're great shooters.

That said, I'm dealing with generalities here, since that's the topic you brought up. Every generality has its exceptions; Kevin Martin, of course, is probably the person who sparked this more general discussion, and he has so far been very much the exception: his shooting %s go up when he gets more shots, as he gain confidence when given a bigger role in the offense. So for the 2006-2007 Kings anyways, I actually don't think this discussion will have much relevance.

 

[Bricklayer]

As this is of course a topic I have opined on many times, I think his is brillaint as a thread. Maybe I'll chip in soemthing meaningful later when I have more time.

 

[nbrans]

Definitely an interesting topic, although I think it's extremely difficult (and dangerous) to generalize and put players into certain categories. I mean, just on the Kings you have people who are efficient shooters but not necessary creators (Brad), creators who aren't efficient shooters (Bibby, Artest), efficient shooters and efficient creators (Shareef) and someone who up until now has been an efficient shooter, but is starting to show signs of becoming a creator (Martin).

So what can you generalize about those categories? Not a great deal, in my opinion. The one constant, though, is that championsihp teams tend to have a transcendent offensive player who is both a creator and an efficient scorer. Wade/Duncan/Kobe/Shaq/Jordan on down the line. Without that type of player you need overwhelming offensive firepower (think Detroit, Phoenix, vintage Kings) and a unique offensive style in order to be an elite offensive team.

I don't see the wisdom, though, in giving the "creators" a free pass on a low shooting percentage just because they're creating shots. If your leading shot takers are not shooting a high percentage you're not going to be a good offensive team.

Ultimately it's a math game. You want your leading shot taker to be the guy who can shoot the highest percentage while taking the most shots, with the caveat that shooting percentage usually goes down as shot attempts go up. To apply it to the Kings, Martin should be taking the most shots, and guys like Bibby and Artest should pass up some looks (especially the ones where they dribble down and throw up a shot with 15+ seconds on the shot clock) to set Martin up.

 

[1kingzfan]

Great topic.

Kevin is not a bonafide creator...YET. The primary reasons are: 1) he's just coming into his own as a starter (playing time, comfort zone, confidence, that sort of thing), and 2) the offense is not geared to allow him to create to the max.

Kevin does indeed create much of what he gets, but it is usually within the confines of the offense. He has not yet been called upon to be THE guy in crucial situations where Kevin gets the ball on one side, his teammates scatter to the other side, and then everyone watches Kevin do his thing....like Kobe, Wade, et al.

Kevin is just not placed in isolation YET like many of the verified superstars of the game. Admittedly, those players are called upon to take more shots, are focused upon by the defenses more, and thus wind up taking a greater number of tougher shots.

But guess what? Those superstar players will get their hands on the ball early, be given the room (and screen help) in the offense to create, will shoot a lower percentage than 50+% typically, but they also make a helluva lot of those tougher shots with 2 guys hanging all over them, oftentimes in game-crucial situations. They are the designated scorer when their team NEEDS a bucket.

Now, is that better than our #23 who rarely takes a bad (forced) shot and almost always looks to get solid separation from his defender before launching? I'm not sure, and I don't think there is a certified single answer to this question.

We should start to think about whether Kevin is one of the best ever at consistently getting the space and distance to get off unobstructed shots. That may really be the key for him so far with his torrid true shooting percentage and productivity pace.

What happens when Kevin has a guy hanging all over him? Does he make shots that way too? My observation is that he DOES when it's in the lane, but he almost never even tries when it's at long range. Pretty much what you'd want to teach your kid about what to do and not do. But the superstars do NOT do that. They confidently launch and launch and launch, regardless of the defense, and they get their share of incredible makes as a result and high scoring average. However, it takes the superstars a lot more shots to rack up the points that Kevin does.

So, a very interesting topic as Kevin is starting to give us a peak at potential stardom. If you're in favor of giving him more shots, as I am, how do you want to see the team do that? I just say a few called pure iso plays per game and see what he does with that. Kevin does not yet have a back-to-the-basket game, so it has to be something that allows him to create face-up off the dribble.

 

[Jespher]

So I have been thinking about this for years, and it has come up sporadically during that time in other conversations, but now I finally decided to start a thread about it.

Often, at least in recent Kings history, there are one or two players on the team that are the offensive initiators and creators whose field goal percentages (and overall efficiencies) are average to below average. Meanwhile, there are one or two players on the team who generally don't create offense for themselves or others, but whose field goal percentages (and overall efficiencies) are well above average. The comment is often made to get those efficient players more shots and have the inefficient players take fewer shots.

My question is how realistic is this request? On the surface it seems obvious that doing this would increase offense, but is it easier said than done? How much of a negative effect would there be by taking the ball out of the hands of the initiators? How dramatically would the scoring efficiencies drop if a super-efficient player suddenly got a lot more attempts within the offense?

This obviously applies to the current Kings situation with Martin shooting so well and others not as much (e.g. Artest, Bibby). Feel free to use current or previous Kings as examples since there are plenty (Martin, Miller, Stojakovic, Artest, Bibby, Webber, etc), or other NBA examples. However, I'm more curious about what you all think of the topic in general rather than arguing over any specific player vs player discussions.

I think that it really doesn't matter if players are shooters or creators as long as they both fit into their team's system and work together to achieve wins for their team. Given all of the various offensive systems applied throughout the NBA over the years this has been exemplified that the ones that find a chemistry and connection tend to have success. Even if the whole team is inefficient offensively (Spurs of 2003) or unfairly marksmanlike and efficient (Spurs of 2006) as long as they fill roles together they find a way to win, either 75-70 or 114-103.

The grouping of players into categories and classes serves to limit them to elements that we as fans can understand. That is why it is so uncommon to celebrate players who don't put up great numbers (or have unusual games) but help their teams win on a nightly basis. Not many players achieve Robert Horry like statis unless they overachieve in the stat line to garner our attention. If the player helps their team win, they should be rewarded for that. Give the Shawn Marion's some props! If Kenny Thomas plays 22 minutes, plays good defense on his opponent, gets a few rebounds, assists, and points, and helps his team win he should get credit for helping out just as much as the guy who threw up 20. It's a team game, you win and lose as a team.

If a player creates shots for others he should get credit for helping his team just as the player who finishes on the other end. If a player plays his game very efficiently and well, but his team struggles then the team needs to make adjustments accordingly, but if the team is winning on a consistent basis, then tampering with it could have unintended effects too.

Having said all that...Give Kevin the damn ball and just let Bibby attack (once he gets healthy). Let them both play their game, they each compliment each other well, they are both good at driving, hitting open shots, finding teammates, getting to the line, and hitting their freethrows. Who says one has to shoot more than the other anyways? Just go with whomever has the hot hand at the time and let the game come to you guys .

 

[BawLa]

Interesting no doubt.

More questions are involved. Here's one:

Of what basis are you judging people's effeciency in a particular offense? 1/8 th of a season with a new coach and injuries? I sure hope not.


I am of the logic that you don't put the pressure on one guy to get it all done. I think it is necessary to allow other people on the team shots so that everyone can find their offensive niche. Then down the stretch you can go to the players where you have a mismatches.

However, you have an emerging first option in Kevin. Statistically speaking, it would be smart to give him more shots until his FG% plateaus and dips down towards 50%. There are different ways to accomplish that. Maybe you force feed him. Maybe you try to subtly increase his workload. Then again, maybe you don't do a thing and let him sustain this confidence over an extended period of time.

A guy like Kevin is drawing up so much comotion because he is scoring a bunch of points on a small amount of shots. He is shooting effeciently, heck the kid is amazing at times, but he also does the little things like driving the lane and drawing fouls. And he is undoubtedly a finisher. My point is that he usually gets a lot of points from free throws. Which can be draining, but as long as he has the energy to sustain an increase in workload, then why not?

And concurrently if he spends more energy on the offensive end then you have to weigh that versus energy lost on the defensive end. I might rather have better defense from him than extra offensive production.

On the other side here is a different point: When he starts gaining more respect around the league we will begin to see what he can do. For the most part he is in his comfort zone right now. When teams are able to force him out of his comfort zone (hopefully never ) we will see how he adapts. If he adapts into a creator then good for us. If he doesn't, then he is still an efficient scorer. Either way is good for us.


Uolj, you asked if it was realistic to ask the other players on the team to standby while we boost a player up to max efficiency. I think the players are getting payed to be a part of a team that sets out to accomplish the short term goal of building chemistry through wins and the long term goal of winning a championship. So IMO, the players should be happy as long as the team wins. Unfortunately that is not the case with several players in the league. The grip of fame and fortune distracts many players from accomplishing the goals that the fans want.

 

[joejoe]

...Ultimately it's a math game. You want your leading shot taker to be the guy who can shoot the highest percentage while taking the most shots, with the caveat that shooting percentage usually goes down as shot attempts go up.

I agree. It seems reasonable that shooting percent falls the more shots a player takes (because they "force" more difficult shots in order to get the FGAs, and because the opposing defense steps up more). If this is true, then the team will maximize points per possession by allocating shots such that each player's FG% is the same. In other words, better shooters should take more shots, while worse shooters should take fewer shots, but they will end up with the same FG% (on average).

 

[Cal-Kings]

Good topic. I only have a few minutes. Reading through this reminded me of the players who are great creators but who's teams don't win at the same pace. I'm thinking first of Allen Iverson who is probably the best creator in the game today but can't spot shoot worth beans and struggles to play in a set offense where he comes off a screen. Watching him try to play with Webber who tries to set screens or pass him the ball to spot shoot is painful. Iverson gets the ball passed to him wide open, and you can just see him hesitate, he simply HAS to put the ball on the floor and drive regardless of how or where he gets the ball. Even when he scores 40 points a game, his team loses.

This reminds me of John Salmons as well, and watching him play with AI in Philly, maybe he picked up too much from AI. I cringe when he's on the floor because he's a one-on-one guy. It's fine for a few minutes but as a steady diet, it's just not Kings ball.

Kobe is a great player (gag!) because he can do both. Although I think he's a better creator than straight up shooter.

Peja is the shooter, he can't drive past anyone but the slowest defender. He almost needs a good screen set. Plus, Peja is too streaky.

Kevin Martin has the potential to do it all. We've seen glimpses of both styles. Enough to be very impressed and enough to want to see a lot more.

 

[Cal-Kings]

And I don't particularly like isolation ball. Too many memories of Karl Malone backing down in ISO for 30 minutes a game... yawn.

An article in this morning's Bee discusses the team going back to Adelman ball on offense which is a good thing. They need to remember Musselman defense at the same time however.

 

[mcsluggo]

I agree. It seems reasonable that shooting percent falls the more shots a player takes (because they "force" more difficult shots in order to get the FGAs, and because the opposing defense steps up more). If this is true, then the team will maximize points per possession by allocating shots such that each player's FG% is the same. In other words, better shooters should take more shots, while worse shooters should take fewer shots, but they will end up with the same FG% (on average).

Spoken like a true econo-nerd!

I can just see the coaches huddle... "you gotta feed the ball to Elvis more, we really need to drag down his FG%, its too damn high..."

 

[nbrans]

Also, I wanted to say that I don't believe that good creators should necessarily be shooting the most shots just because they're skilled at getting their shots off. If your highest-percentage-shooter-while-taking-the-most-shots-guy (let's call him the HPSWTTMSG) is a shooter but not a good creator, then it behooves you to work on freeing that shooter and setting him up for good looks. With the Webber-less Kings, Peja was the best option, and the offense largely centered around freeing Peja for good looks. Same with the Reggie Miller Pacers.

Of course, the problem with those teams is that the pure shooters can usually be knocked off their game by very good defense, which is why teams centered around pure shooters very rarely, if ever, win it all (the Bird Celtics were maybe the best example, although the shooting was balanced and complemented by a very good post offense).

But still, offenses should be designed around the HPSWTTMSG, whether that's a post player, a shooter, a creator or a hybrid. But if you don't have a HPSWTTMSG who is also a good creator you have an uphill climb to the championship.

 

[AriesMar27]

i really couldnt answer that question in regards to martin, simply because bibby, artest and miller are injured....

once the team is healthy martin will get more shots and still be efficient because the rest of our team becomes more dangerous to leave open. up until last season, bibby and miller to a lesser extent were considered great shooters. lets not forget how clutch bibby has been in the past.

once the team gets going offensively through bibby artest and miller martins game will be made 10x easier... and will get several more hig % shots, mostly from miller... and vise versa with the way that martin attacks the basket.

also... have any of you noticed that martin plays better with salmons than he does with artest? and that artest plays better with garcia than martin? whenever martin goes on a tear slamons is in the game with him... when ever garcia scores (all 9 points) artest is in with him... martin doesnt score well with garcia and garcia doesnt score well with slamons... weird... salmons doesnt play with artest for an extended period of time, so god only knows how that works out... very weird...

 

[1kingzfan]

And I don't particularly like isolation ball. Too many memories of Karl Malone backing down in ISO for 30 minutes a game... yawn.

An article in this morning's Bee discusses the team going back to Adelman ball on offense which is a good thing.

I don't advocate 1-on-1 ball for 48 minutes either. An offense with crisp passing and getting everyone involved is more effective, more fun for the players, and more fun to view as a fan. All of us should realize and deeply appreciate what a great thing we had several years ago with such an efficient TEAM of offensive players and passers.

However, back to the present, there are many times when the shots don't fall for 3 or 4 or 5 possessions in a row or more when running the standard offense. At that juncture, the coach should call a play for someone that has a greater likelihood of scoring than the rest. This can be a different look/play in the standard set or, if you have a truly accomplished player, put him in iso to see if he can at least draw a foul going to the hole and get a couple freebies to stop the bleeding.

Martin can be used in iso here and there to change things up, when needed or just to keep the D off balance. So far, we have seen very little of that.

 

[Nikos]

The right balance is key. Sometimes player who score extremely efficiently and are moderate at creating their own shot can be as valuable as someone who creates their own shot real well, but scores inefficiently.

 

[Bricklayer]

A big key, not much discussed above isn't about the efficeint scorer vs. inefficient one at all -- its about how much they create for their teammates. Being an efficient scorer is very nice and all, but if that is all the guy does than having him dominate the ball isn't the best strategy for the team, no matter how great he shoots. What you need is a guy who either through creative passing, or often tremendous post play (thus freeing perimeter shooters as defenses sag) opens up the whole game for the rest of the team. If you have that guy, then the ball should be in his hands, regardless fo who is scoring, and how efficiently. If that guy can also score efficiently, then you are in GREAT shape. But even if he can't he trumps the scorer -- in fact if the scorer is a shooter without creative ability, he can make the scorer.

This is, for instance, why Michael Redd's team isn't going anywhere. Tremendous, efficient scorer. But he doesn't make anybody else better. They would be far better off finding a guy who did and having Redd play off him as a second fiddle. Those guys are hard to find though obviously.


This ties into the question about can you get efficient scorers more shots just in that maybe you don't necesarily want to if they aren't making guys better.

 

[nbrans]

^That's a very good point. Wade/Duncan/Kobe/Shaq etc. were all good at passing out of double-teams and moving the ball for easy looks when teams key on them too much. It's also a reason that AI has succeded as the focal point of an offense despite not shooting a good percentage. He does open up looks for other people, he gets good assist numbers, and he often causes a defense to focus on him so much that a dirty-work big man like Tyrone Hill was effective cleaning up the offensive glass. It requires an entire team of dirty-work players to compliment AI (i.e. not what they have now), but it did work.

Also it's encouraging because Kevin shows a growing ability to pass out of double teams and find guys for open looks.

It's also a reason why the offense thrives with Salmons distributing, although the thing that is currently driving me crazy about Salmons is that he's either in a scoring or passing mindset, and the two don't overlap. He either takes the ball to the hoop with the goal of passing and passes or he takes the ball to the hoop with the goal of scoring and shoots. He's not a particularly adaptive player to what the defense throws at him when he's looking to score, and thus he ends up taking bad shots when he could pass out of bad situations.

 

[Lamar_Odom]

I think there has to be a balance. A good example would be the drive and kick to the open man. Similarly, what the Lakers are trying to do by surrounding Kobe or Lamar Odom with shooters. They initiate the offense, if they can take it to the hoop they will, or if they find an open man for a mid-range shot, or even a trey. That was what they were doing too when Shaq got the ball low, and he would take it outside to Glenn Rice, Rick Fox, Horry, Fisher, or even Kobe for the outside jumper. It all becomes a decision whether the initiator can take a high-percentage shot, or if it is feasible to dish it to the open man. I don't think it should be a rule to take the ball out of the hands of the initiator/creator but as the situation dictates. Typically, the ball should be in the initiator's hand, and the decision is left to that player as to take it all the way to the hoop, or dish it to an open teammate.