Adjusted Shooting by Player (Is CJ a good scorer?)

[B-Roy]

I was stumbling around basketball-reference due to CJ's hot start and I noticed that BR added an adjusted shooting section. At first I was quite confused but looking deeper I think there are a few stats that can help evaluate how good of a scorer someone is, those being FG Add and TS Add.

I'll post an explanation on reddit that explains it better but the TL;DR is that we want to compare a players shot attempts to the average shot attempt for a player across the league using a players eFG% and TS%.

FG Add and TS Add try to measure the cumulative points gained/lost over the course of a season based on a player's shooting percentages vs. an average shot attempt. It's a very simplistic attempt to quantify efficiency that shouldn't be used on its own to determine a player's worth. It ignores a lot of context specific factors like a player's role in the offense, teammates, etc. It's also going to favor bigs who shoot nothing but dunks and layups, and penalizes volume scorers. Nevertheless, I think it's still a useful tool that can be used as part of the evaluation process.

I was curious how good CJ has been so far compared to his historical numbers, and wow, it's night and day. https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/m/mccolcj01.html For the last three years, CJ has been a significant negative in terms of scoring generation: https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/m/mccolcj01.html

He posted TS Add of -67.5 last year, which is third worst on the team behind Carmelo Anthony and Anfernee Simons. Over the course of his career he is a -36.6 in terms of TS Add. By comparison, Dame is +800.5. Carmelo is +95.8 for his career, but he was -68.2 last year and a whopping -132.6 with OKC in 17-18. He's also been a negative since 14-15.

In fact, if we look at adjust shooting numbers across the league:
https://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2020_adj_shooting.html
-68.2 puts him ranked 506/529 in the league. (Melo is 507). In terms of volume scorers, it makes him one of the worst in the league.

It's also interesting seeing the rankings compared to the rest of the team, to maybe help with shot distribution. For example in 17-18:

https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/POR/2018.html#all_adj-shooting

1. Dame: 124.8
15. Nurk: -59.4 (Just awful for a center)
16. CJ: -64.4 (YIKES)

Sidenote: It's no wonder the 18-19 team was the best offensive team in the Dame era:
https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/POR/2019.html#all_adj-shooting
Almost everyone was a positive or just a slight negative.

This year he is 45/432. It's also a cumulative stat so games played so it's going to favor players with more games played. (Although Harden is #1 with about half the games played as everyone else, LOL)
https://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2021_adj_shooting.html

Either way, this is the level of efficiency he needs to sustain for the Blazers to be good. I'm very happy with his offense and playmaking so far this season. Looking forward to seeing him sustain it.

The post that explains FG Add and TS Add:

This is a PHENOMENAL new feature on the BR site! Basically all player shooting stats are compared to the league averages, so if a player has the exact same EffectiveFG% as the league average, they will have a eFG+ of 100. If they have a 105, then their eFG% is 5% better than the league average that year, so it helps compare averages/efficiencies across eras.

I'll do a quick comparison of career adjusted shooting stats for historic SG's. The 4 key adjusted stats I'll look at are 1) Effective FG% (eFG+ - which incorporates 3's into FG%), 2) True Shooting % (TS+ - which incorporates FT's to capture a fuller picture of all scoring), 3) FG Add (amount of extra points added by FGA made above league average), and 4) TS Add (amount of extra points added by True Shot Attempts, which includes FT shooting, above league average):

• Michael Jordan: 104 eFG+, 106 TS+, 1010 FG Add, 1944 TS Add
  
  
• Kobe Bryant: 99 eFG+, 103 TS+, -299 FG Add, 1122 TS Add
  
  
• Dwyane Wade: 100 eFG+, 103 TS+, -95 FG Add, 605 TS Add
  
  
• James Harden: 103 eFG+, 112 TS+, 458 FG Add, 2146 TS Add
  
  
• Jerry West: 108 FG+, 112 TS+, 1277 FG Add, 2687 TS Add
  
  
• Allen Iverson: 94 eFG+, 98 TS+, -1222 FG Add, -426 TS Add
  
  
• Sam Jones: 106 FG+, 104 TS+, 743 FG Add, 630 TS Add
  
  
• George Gervin: 105 FG+, 107 TS+, 974 FG Add, 1688 TS Add
  
  
• Clyde Drexler: 101 eFG+, 102 TS+, 172 FG Add, 420 TS Add
  
  
• Reggie Miller: 112 eFG+, 116 TS+, 2073 FG Add, 3450 TS Add
  
  
• Ray Allen: 109 eFG+, 110 TS+, 1699 FG Add, 2130 TS Add
  
  
• Steph Curry: 115 eFG+, 115 TS+, 1802 FG Add, 2081 TS Add .... PG, but comparing to Reggie & Ray
  
  
• Bill Sharman: 110 FG+, 110 TS+, 875 FG Add, 1120 TS Add
  

Using Jordan as an example, he was 4% better than the league average at making baskets from the field, 6% better than the league average when incorporating all of his FT shooting, he added 1010 career points over an average shooter taking all of his shots throughout his career, and he added 1944 total points over an average shooter taking his shots and trying to go to the FT line (so him taking a lot of FT's helps a lot here). You can see Reggie Miller was super efficient and took an absurd amount of FT's for an outside shooter, so his points added on his shots are insanely high --- I'll add that Jerry West was at least in his neighborhood without the benefit of shooting 3's, and he was a phenomenal outside shooter (similar situation for Bill Sharman). The below-average (sub 100) efficiencies of Iverson & Kobe shouldn't surprise anyone. Curry is a great FT shooter, but his TS+ and TS Add are barely above his shooting from the field numbers because he shoots so few FT's.

 

[Natebishop3]

One of the things that drives me nuts about CJ is the difficulty of his shots. How many times do you see him go 1 on 3 and put up some insane floater from the free throw line?

 

[bobf]

Cool thanks! I've often wished CJ would shoot more 3's him being 40% for his career. This year he is confident taking 3's he would have passed up before. I've noticed that when a player starts to take a 3 then second guesses and turns it down, it often results in a turn-over... either he picks his pivot foot up early or a teammate gets a 3-second call, or he passes to a guy who simultaneously cuts inside for a rebound. So I'm glad to see CJ letting them fly. So far it's done wonders for his efficiency though we can't expect him to continue hitting 46%.

 

[handiman]

One of the things that drives me nuts about CJ is the difficulty of his shots. How many times do you see him go 1 on 3 and put up some insane floater from the free throw line?

You probably won't see this, because you don't like me, but that's actually the beauty of his game. CJ is essentially un-guardable when dialed in, and the higher the stakes, the more that slippery ability to create matters. People who love basketball tend to appreciate it. People who focus on stats and efficiency tend to hate it. You routinely state how much you hate the NBA and lately even the Blazers, so it's no surprise you hate CJ.

 

[Scalma]

Best part about CJ so far is that he’s taking more three pointers. I think he could be even more efficient if he was used as a Klay/Redick (less ballhandling, more spot ups) but this will do.

And yes, I’d still trade him for Harden in a second.

 

[wizenheimer]

I've been harping for years now that CJ's ability to create his own shot is way overrated, and that he should have an assisted FG rate of 60% or higher instead of 35%. He's not efficient at all when he's going one-on-one

I'm also skeptical he'll continue shooting and passing like he has been, but maybe he's seen the light

 

[Natebishop3]

I've been harping for years now that CJ's ability to create his own shot is way overrated, and that he should have an assisted FG rate of 60% or higher instead of 35%. He's not efficient at all when he's going one-on-one

I'm also skeptical he'll continue shooting and passing like he has been, but maybe he's seen the light

The thing is, he makes shots way harder than they need to be. And if he absolutely needs to put up a tough shot, pass the fucking ball.

 

[tlongII]

:rolleyes

 

[kjironman1]

Like him or not CJ has played well this year. I really don't care what the stats and advanced metrics say. This year they are 0-5 without him.

 

[Wizard Mentor]

1) This may be why Olshey "won't" trade CJ - other GMs know about this.
2) CJ has been much better this season - more 3s are good.
3) I think I like CJ's "new" role - get him the ball when there are 10 or less seconds to go in the shot clock. Otherwise, CJ passes.

 

[BonesJones]

I feel like theres a ton of context that's missing from that stat (which you noted) that is important for making CJs case.

 

[BonesJones]

1) This may be why Olshey "won't" trade CJ - other GMs know about this.
2) CJ has been much better this season - more 3s are good.
3) I think I like CJ's "new" role - get him the ball when there are 10 or less seconds to go in the shot clock. Otherwise, CJ passes.

He's done a better job of making the right decision on whether to pass or shoot this year.

 

[bobf]

Like him or not CJ has played well this year. I really don't care what the stats and advanced metrics say. This year they are 0-5 without him.

I detect a tad bit of irony in your post.

 

[kjironman1]

I detect a tad bit of irony in your post.

I'm really against making a case with stats. To the point where i'm almost "Knee Jerk" critical. They serve a purpose for sure but i have a hard time watching a game and knowing what i am seeing, then having someone tell me I watched something different because the stats say otherwise.

 

[Hoopguru]

The thing is, he makes shots way harder than they need to be. And if he absolutely needs to put up a tough shot, pass the fucking ball.

CJ is a gun slinging guard in a league that plays run and gun play ground ball. I do get frustrated at times when he wants to iso aND DRIBBLE so much, but I get frustrated when Dame FIRES up heat check shots from 35 in a close game. when every possession is critical.

 

[bobf]

I'm really against making a case with stats. To the point where i'm almost "Knee Jerk" critical. They serve a purpose for sure but i have a hard time watching a game and knowing what i am seeing, then having someone tell me I watched something different because the stats say otherwise.

I was just joking about your “this year they are 0-5 without him” which is kind of like a stat. Though I don’t know what 0-5 means since we haven’t lost 5 games. Preseason?

I disagree though I think stats are a great starting point. They are measurements. But of course you do have to factor in what they overstate, what they understate, what they completely fail to capture, and what you see. I think there are biases in game-watching just as there are in stats.

 

[kjironman1]

I was just joking about your “this year they are 0-5 without him” which is kind of like a stat. Though I don’t know what 0-5 means since we haven’t lost 5 games. Preseason?

Record is 3-2 right now. Yes i guess record is a stat. So irony is thick for sure.
They have played 5 games. CJ pretty much carried them against both the Rock-etts and the Lakers (Albeit GT played well). Lillard didn't show until the second half of the GS game. Without CJ they lose all five games.

 

[bobf]

Record is 3-2 right now. Yes i guess record is a stat. So irony is thick for sure.
They have played 5 games. CJ pretty much carried them against both the Rock-etts and the Lakers (Albeit GT played well). Lillard didn't show until the second half of the GS game. Without CJ they lose all five games.

Ok, I get it now "we are 0-5 without CJ" you are saying we would be. I'm dumb.

 

[TBpup]

You probably won't see this, because you don't like me, but that's actually the beauty of his game. CJ is essentially un-guardable when dialed in, and the higher the stakes, the more that slippery ability to create matters. People who love basketball tend to appreciate it. People who focus on stats and efficiency tend to hate it. You routinely state how much you hate the NBA and lately even the Blazers, so it's no surprise you hate CJ.

CJ is essentially unguardable when dialed in. The issue has been when he isn't dialed in an continues to hoist up off-balance, difficult shots against multiple defenders while teammates are wide open. That said, he is FINALLY playing at a much more efficient rate this season which is all many of us have been asking for....for years.

 

[handiman]

CJ is essentially unguardable when dialed in. The issue has been when he isn't dialed in an continues to hoist up off-balance, difficult shots against multiple defenders while teammates are wide open. That said, he is FINALLY playing at a much more efficient rate this season which is all many of us have been asking for....for years.

Shooters gotta keep shooting. To argue against that shows a disconnect between fandom and athlete/coach.

 

[B-Roy]

https://cleaningtheglass.com/

Anyone have access? I’m thinking about shelling the 5 dollars. It’s funny that one of the testimonials is Neil Olshey lmao.

 

[TBpup]

Shooters gotta keep shooting. To argue against that shows a disconnect between fandom and athlete/coach.

Except for the VAST majority of CJ's career, he has been a poor efficiency shooter. So to continue to do that, doesn't seem the wisest course. Now this year is different so far.....finally.

 

[handiman]

Except for the VAST majority of CJ's career, he has been a poor efficiency shooter. So to continue to do that, doesn't seem the wisest course. Now this year is different so far.....finally.

That's a distortion of the truth, using things like TS%. CJ has been an elite shooter much of his career. He just doesn't get to the rim or FT line to pad the efficiency stats.

 

[bobf]

CJ is a gun slinging guard in a league that plays run and gun play ground ball. I do get frustrated at times when he wants to iso aND DRIBBLE so much, but I get frustrated when Dame FIRES up heat check shots from 35 in a close game. when every possession is critical.

But maybe Dame's 35+ shots are actually good shots. Here are his percentages at various distances for the past 2+ seasons. Not enough sample at 35+ but judging from the 30-34 category they might well be high percentage. Also Dame's bombs bypass the turnover % of our half-court offense so their efficiency is understated. On the flip side there are intangible negatives. Like who wants to run all-out down the floor only to watch Dame jack up a shot.

Distance | Made - Attempts | Percentage
0-99 | 531 of 1375| 0.386*
24-25 | 136 of 366| 0.372
26-29 | 283 of 728| 0.389
30-34 | 84 of 206| 0.408
35-39 | 10 of 21| 0.476
40+ | 1 of 8 | 0.125
Unkown | 17 of 46| 0.370**

*I'm missing 5 three-pointers compared to BB Reference. I believe these are blocked shot events which lose shot type and distance so they get categorized as twos.
**Unfortunately some 3-pointer events don't provide a distance.

 

[Hoopguru]

But maybe Dame's 35+ shots are actually good shots. Here are his percentages at various distances for the past 2+ seasons. Not enough sample at 35+ but judging from the 30-34 category they might well be high percentage. Also Dame's bombs bypass the turnover % of our half-court offense so their efficiency is understated. On the flip side there are intangible negatives. Like who wants to run all-out down the floor only to watch Dame jack up a shot.

Distance | Made - Attempts | Percentage
0-99 | 531 of 1375| 0.386*
24-25 | 136 of 366| 0.372
26-29 | 283 of 728| 0.389
30-34 | 84 of 206| 0.408
35-39 | 10 of 21| 0.476
40+ | 1 of 8 | 0.125
Unkown | 17 of 46| 0.370**

*I'm missing 5 three-pointers compared to BB Reference. I believe these are blocked shot events which lose shot type and distance so they get categorized as twos.
**Unfortunately some 3-pointer events don't provide a distance.

Thanks, Im more concerned about when its a critical possession in a tight game. Id like to know how many of the 35-39 were critical possessions in a tight game.
I realize its his trademark like Curry.

 

[wizenheimer]

That's a distortion of the truth, using things like TS%. CJ has been an elite shooter much of his career. He just doesn't get to the rim or FT line to pad the efficiency stats.

it's not a "distortion of the truth". TS% is an actual gauge of the value of possessions CJ uses relative to the rest of the league. He's average...that's the truth.

and getting to the rim or FT line is not "padding stats". That's just distorting reality in order to prop CJ up. Getting to the rim and FT line is called winning basketball. It's the gauge of good-to-elite scorers and CJ doesn't qualify

Kyle Korver was a better "shooter" than CJ. So was Steve Kerr. But their teams didn't want either player to burn up possessions going one-on-one. Portland has allowed CJ to go one-on-one and dribble away gobs of shot clocks, but the reality is he's just not efficient when he's doing that. Lats year, as a team, Portland averaged 1.26 points/shot. CJ averaged less than 1.15. Yet, if you look at CJ's possession break down, you see that CJ is in a high percentile on spot-up shots, and he's nearly elite at catch-&-shoot. That means he's even worse than 1.15 points/shot when he's creating his own offense

look at this:



now, this isn't really surprising. Most players will have higher efficiency when the team creates offensive opportunities for them. But the contrast with CJ is extreme. And it's important to keep in mind he's off to an incredibly hot start. It's very unlikely he can sustain these shooting numbers. But what is clear is that CJ is significantly worse when he's creating his own offense. CJ's assisted FG% should be close to 60% instead of his career mark of around 35%. His one-on-one ability is overrated

 

[bobf]

Thanks, Im more concerned about when its a critical possession in a tight game. Id like to know how many of the 35-39 were critical possessions in a tight game.
I realize its his trademark like Curry.

Here you go. Dame's efficiency has dropped significantly here. Sample sizes are getting small.
0-99 | 55 of 174| 0.316
24-25 | 16 of 43| 0.372
26-29 | 25 of 83| 0.301
30-34 | 11 of 36| 0.306
35-39 | 3 of 4| 0.750
Unknown | 0 of 5| 0.000
(4th quarter or OT with 5 minutes or less and score within 5 points).

 

[Hoopguru]

Here you go. Dame's efficiency has dropped significantly here. Sample sizes are getting small.
0-99 | 55 of 174| 0.316
24-25 | 16 of 43| 0.372
26-29 | 25 of 83| 0.301
30-34 | 11 of 36| 0.306
35-39 | 3 of 4| 0.750
Unknown | 0 of 5| 0.000
(4th quarter or OT with 5 minutes or less and score within 5 points).

Thanks, interesting. Maybe he should take more 35-39'.

 

[Hoopguru]

CJ has a good assist to turnover. .07 pg, steals are decent too.

 

[handiman]

Kyle Korver was a better "shooter" than CJ. So was Steve Kerr. But their teams didn't want either player to burn up possessions going one-on-one.

You're great at using statistics to "prove" a point, but not so great at capturing actual basketball play. Those are absolutely horrible examples. Neither Korver or Kerr was capable of creating for themselves. They were (are) specialist role players.