{"id":400,"date":"2012-08-27T03:07:59","date_gmt":"2012-08-27T09:07:59","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/67.227.157.91\/~kenpom\/wp_blog\/shot-chart-champions\/"},"modified":"2012-08-27T03:07:59","modified_gmt":"2012-08-27T09:07:59","slug":"shot-chart-champions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kenpom.com\/blog\/shot-chart-champions\/","title":{"rendered":"Shot chart champions"},"content":{"rendered":"

The good folks at cbssports.com<\/a> provide shot location data<\/a> for selected games during the season. Typically, I make use of this data as a sanity check on a player\u2019s two-point percentage. For instance, it can be useful to distinguish poor two-point shooters that take too many mid-range shots from those that just can\u2019t finish near the rim. <\/p>\n

Data isn\u2019t available for every player and it\u2019s not complete for most players – cbssports.com only has its hamsters running on about 15% of games, those involving a ranked team or a tournament game. Furthermore, the location recorded for individual shots has some error associated with it. I\u2019m guessing it\u2019s in the 3-4\u2019 range. Still, one can safely distinguish a 2\u2019 shot from an 8\u2019 shot and a 10\u2019 shot from a 17\u2019 shot and that can be valuable information we can’t get without doing a lot of work. <\/p>\n

I thought it would be interesting to use the shot charts to identify the players that are exceptional in one area or another. The kind of thing we can\u2019t do with conventional data, and the kind of thing we can\u2019t easily do simply by watching a lot of games. <\/p>\n

Best FG% inside 6\u2019<\/h4>\n

– Min. 50 shots\u2026Kyle Kuric, Louisville (56\/68, 82.3%).<\/strong> At 6-4, Kuric\u2019s not the name you\u2019d expect to see here, but he had enough hops and fast break chances to maximize his chances. Or at least, that\u2019s the theory I\u2019m going with.
\n– Among returning players\u2026Rodney Williams, Minnesota (41\/53, 77.4%).<\/strong> Williams is a dunking specialist and his production near the rim continues to make him an effective offensive player despite the slow development of other parts of his game.  <\/p>\n

– Min. 100 shots…Anthony Davis (173\/230, 75.2%).<\/strong> Honorable mention: Ricardo Ratliffe, Missouri (190\/253, 75.1%). Given that these guys were among the best two-point shooters in the nation, it\u2019s not surprising to see that they dominated close to the rim.
\n– Among returning players: Deshaun Thomas, Ohio State (129\/184, 70.1%).<\/strong> Thomas\u2019s freshman season most strongly compares to Luke Harangody<\/a>. The more I look at Thomas\u2019s stats (great) and his draft stock (not great, at least yet), the more I think he\u2019s headed down the Harangody career path (illegal cross-race comparison aside). He might be a great college player that won\u2019t get the full attention of pro scouts. Given that there aren\u2019t a lot of dunks in these numbers, Thomas\u2019s close 2P% as a sophomore was pretty amazing.<\/p>\n

Highest percentage of shots inside 6\u2019<\/h4>\n

– Min. 50 shots\u2026Wendell Lewis, Mississippi State (62\/69, 89.9%).<\/strong> I suppose if you already have Dee Bost, Renardo Sidney, and Arnett Moultrie in the lineup, you need someone like Lewis to patiently stay out of the way. He took just 9.1% of the Bulldogs\u2019 shots last season and I suspect few of those were the result of his teammates intentionally giving him the ball. He made 63% of his close attempts.
\n– Min. 100 shots\u2026Davante Gardner, Marquette (129\/146, 88.4%).<\/strong> Gardner was extremely efficient in a year where his minutes were limited by a combination of coach\u2019s decisions and injuries, and the production is easy to understand since he shot almost exclusively near the rim. This approach also generated a bunch of free throw attempts, of which he made 76%.<\/p>\n

Best mid-range FG% (6\u2019-20\u2019)<\/h4>\n

– Min. 50 shots\u2026Mike Scott, Virginia (110\/205, 53.7%).<\/strong> Obviously, Scott didn\u2019t just sneak over the arbitrarily-selected minimum threshold here. Actually, he ranked second in the country in the percentage of his field goal attempts that were from mid-range land.
\n– Among returning players: Anthony Collins, South Florida (28\/53, 52.8%).<\/strong> USF\u2019s freshman point guard was just 7-of-24 on three-pointers last season. I\u2019m expecting an increase in production from there as a sophomore. Sure, his 53 mid-range attempts are a small sample, but he was also an 85% shooter from the free throw line, so the shooting touch is there. Let him heave it, Stan Heath.
\n– Min. 100 shots\u2026Mike Scott.<\/strong>
\n– Among returning players\u2026Deshaun Thomas (67\/143, 46.9%).<\/strong> Keep in mind, there were only 31 players that had 100 mid-range shots recorded. Still, it\u2019s impressive to see Thomas pop up as exceptional as both a finisher and a mid-range jump shooter. <\/p>\n

Highest percentage of shots taken from mid-range (6\u2019-20\u2019)<\/h4>\n

– Min. 100 total shots\u2026Andrew Fitzgerald, Oklahoma (77\/103, 74.8%).<\/strong> Fitzgerald made 42% of his attempts, which is quite solid. (You can basically treat mid-range FG% as you would 3P%. The average success rate is nearly identical.) His mid-range appetite explains how he could take 339 field goal attempts, zero three-pointers, and yet attempt just 78 free throws. <\/p>\n

Best long range 2P% (13\u2019-20\u2019)<\/h4>\n

– Min. 50 shots\u2026Mike Scott (65\/116, 56.0%).<\/strong> If the shot chart data is to be believed, Scott lived in the 13-20\u2019 belt. So much so that you wonder why he took just 20 three-pointers last season. There\u2019s a decent outside shooter waiting to emerge here.
\n– Among returning players\u2026Jordan Hulls, Indiana (24\/54, 44.4%).<\/strong> Only 42 guys qualified here, returning or not, and Hulls was actually sixth-best among them, giving you an idea of how difficult these shots are. Only attempt them in an emergency, kids. Unless you\u2019re Mike Scott. <\/p>\n

Highest percentage of shots taken from 13-20\u2019<\/h4>\n

– Min. 100 total shots\u2026Steven Pledger, Oklahoma (49\/141, 34.8%).<\/strong> Pledger and Fitzgerald rank one and two in this category. There are a few possible explanations for this, among them that the hamsters recording data at the Lloyd Noble Center might have had a bias towards inflating shot lengths. But remember that since data is only recorded for games involving top 25 teams, and the Sooners were not a top 25 team, they were facing difficult defenses in this sample. I’m inclined to believe the numbers given that OU ranked 246th in 2P% last season and barely got to the line. It follows that they probably weren\u2019t challenging the rim often. Considering their inability to get easy 2’s, it’s a mystery as to why just 22% of their shots were three-pointers.<\/p>\n

Fewest mid-range shots<\/h4>\n

(as a percentage of total shots)
\n– Min 20 3PA and 20 shots inside 6\u2019\u2026Kwamain Mitchell, Saint Louis (4\/57, 7.0%).<\/strong>
\n– Min 50 3PA and 50 shots inside 6\u2019\u2026Elijah Johnson, Kansas (50\/330, 15.2%).<\/strong><\/p>\n

(as a percentage of 2-point shots)
\n– Min 20 3PA and 20 shots inside 6\u2019\u2026Mitchell (4\/25, 16.0%).<\/strong>
\n– Min 50 3PA and 50 shots inside 6\u2019\u2026Vander Blue, Marquette (40\/203, 19.7%)<\/strong><\/p>\n

With these categories, I wanted to identify the guys that had the kind of game where they would have the opportunity to take mid-range shots and then see who passed them up the most. These are guys that ultimately took shots at the rim and from long-range more exclusively than anyone else. Johnson was a better finisher than Blue, making 66% of his shots (62\/94) near the rim while hitting a measly 36% of his 50 attempts from mid-range.<\/p>\n

As you might imagine, I was curious about the players that were on the other end of the spectrum. We’re all adults here, right?<\/p>\n

Worst FG% inside 6\u2019<\/h4>\n

– Min 50 shots\u2026A.J. Walton, Baylor (24\/67, 35.8%).<\/strong> In this (presumed) era of increased transferring, it\u2019s probably a testament to Walton\u2019s character that he\u2019s stayed with Baylor. His offense is overmatched in the Big 12 and he must have a had a good idea at this time last season that he wouldn\u2019t be starting in his last two seasons with Pierre Jackson coming on board.
\n– Min 100 shots\u2026Russ Smith, Louisville (72\/148, 48.6%).<\/strong> I could talk about Smith here, but you’ll soon see why that’s not necessary.<\/p>\n

Worst mid-range FG% (6\u2019-20\u2019)<\/h4>\n

– Min 50 shots\u2026(tie) Russ Smith (31\/124, 25.0%), John Shurna, Northwestern (13\/52, 25.0%).<\/strong> Louisville actually had three of the bottom five here with Peyton Siva and Chris Smith making the list.<\/p>\n

Worst long-range 2P% (13\u2019-20’)<\/h4>\n

– Min 50 shots\u2026(tie) Russ Smith (13\/51, 25.5%), Marcus Denmon, Missouri (13\/51, 25.5%).<\/strong> It\u2019s nice when the stats paint the same picture as the eyes. Any way you slice up the court, Smith had trouble making shots. It\u2019s all the more impressive considering he took a whopping 36% of the Cardinals\u2019 shots when he played. I realize Smith has a lovable personality and his game is entertaining<\/a>. And being on a high-turnover, high-offensive rebound team, mid-range two-point attempts are not as bad of a deal as they are on a normal team. But Louisville will be much better off this season if Smith can help out his teammates off the dribble instead of chucking ill-advised shots.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The good folks at cbssports.com provide shot location data for selected games during the season. Typically, I make use of this data as a sanity check on a player\u2019s two-point percentage. For instance, it can be useful to distinguish poor two-point shooters that take too many mid-range shots from those that just can\u2019t finish near […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kenpom.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/400"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kenpom.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kenpom.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kenpom.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kenpom.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=400"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/kenpom.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/400\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kenpom.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=400"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kenpom.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=400"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kenpom.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=400"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}