I was discussing this earlier with Hicks and I thought I gave an example that accurately explained why a player such as Danny Granger, who's had a low FG% his entire career is actually an efficient scorer.
Obviously we've had threads turn into train wrecks over the years because so many people truly believe Granger isn't an efficient scorer. Well, I get that it can be confusing at sometimes, so for those who do NOT understand, here is an example to help clear it.
Note- For those people who are into advanced statistics and completely understand this concept, this is not for you. I realize that there are many other issues that come into hand when scoring the ball. Such as too many turnovers, taking the shot within the offense, stopping the ball on offense etc. There is much more that we have to understand when evaluating an individual player.
One more note: I did not get into the difference between eFG% and TS%. This has to do with freethrows. Please note, that if a player shoots well from the field, he could still not be as efficient as another player who gets to the line at a much more frequent rate. TS% accounts for how many times a given player can get to the line as well as shooting three pointers.
What TS% tells us in an a vacuum, is whether one player is more or less efficient at getting the ball into the basket. That's it. Just because one player is more efficient at scoring does NOT mean he is better than another. It just means based on his role in the offense, this is how efficient he is at scoring.
Once again, while it is probably a rare event, I DO believe that a player can have a high TS% yet be detrimental to the offense. This can happen. We are not trying to put too much faith into one particular statistic. However, I use it all the time because it is generally pretty accurate at assessing whether a player is doing well scoring the ball.
Now, for those who do NOT like this statistic, one of their biggest problems is they don't see how a guy like Danny Granger, who makes only 42% of his baskets is scoring as efficiently as someone like Kobe Bryant who in most years has a respectable FG% of 46 or 47%.
This is the problem as they see it: Player A misses 58% of his buckets. That means the other team has that many more times to score!! The problem with this thinking, is people wrongly believe a defensive rebound is giving them an EXTRA possession. A defensive rebound is NOT an extra possession. (again, please don't make fun for pointing out such obvious **** like this, while it may seem obvious, some people are having trouble understand this).
In the following example, I'm showing how a team with MORE misses would actually be an advantage! (Note- in real life, if you shoot too many three's, you don't get to the line and earn points at the free throw line. This example is only created to show that if a player has a lower percentage, because of higher 3pt attempts this is NOT giving the opposing team an advantage.)
So here's the example. Once again, please try to understand that this is an example giving an impossible scenario. This is merely helping people understand that if a player shoots more three's, as long as they are efficient behind the arc, they are helping their team score.
Example number 1:
One team plays an entire game shooting three's, one shoots all two's.
60 possessions all game for each team, and 60 shots.
Assume the following: No turnovers, no offensive rebounds.
Team A makes 20 3's, and scores 60 points.
Team B makes 30 2's and scores 60 points.
Now in that given scenario, they tied and both teams had the same possessions.
They tied. No team won the game.
Now what we are going to do is change up that first scenario above and imagine those teams are getting offensive rebounds. We'll assume in this second scenario, both teams have the SAME offensive rebounding percentages.
Both teams in the next scenario get offensive rebounds 10% of the time.
The team that was taking the three's ends up with 4 offensive rebounds. They had 40 misses, so off of the 40 misses they ended up with 4 rebounds.
The team that was taking the two's ends up with 3 offensive rebounds. They had 30 misses. So three rebounds off of the 30 misses.
We assume now instead of 60 shots for each team, there is 64 shots for the team shooting three's, and 63 shots for the team shooting two's.
Now, we assume that all shooting percentages are the same, so they score the same amount of points per shot as each other.
So the team shooting all the three's wins the game because they actually had MORE misses.
Remember, no team shot a better percentage, no team had a better rebound percentage.
So, for those who didn't understand, does it make sense now? Do you see why Danny Granger, tho not half the player Kobe Bryant is, he is actually a MORE efficient scorer?
Now, with all of that said, when we talk about Danny Granger in particular, he definitely needed to improve in some areas. As the primary scorer he forced up too many bad shots late in the shot clock. As good as he is at getting to the line and shooting three's, he still was not as good as he could of been had he better looks at the basket. But either way, he was relatively efficient at scoring.
Edit - It should be fairly obvious, but since it is not I will say it anyways, I am not arguing that misses are a good thing. They are never a good thing. The point of the example above, is to explain in detail, that you cannot get an extra possession from a missed shot. So, in the long run it doesn't matter if you NEVER make a shot, or you make every shot. The only thing that matters is the end result. POINTS. How you got those points is meaningless. The foul line? Three's? Layups? Who cares. Points are what matters.