Home of the A10 Bounce“Because there is always room for one more on the bench.”
and MAAC Press Break“No matter what sport you like these guys got it covered. ”
Stat of the day: Field Goal Percentage
by Paul Casey Gotham
I’m not gonna lie. This odyssey of stat analysis has become a selfish quest. The last few years I have spent my time in March plodding through the NCAA site as I try to make sense of the numbers. Yes, some might suggest this a foolish waste of time. Nonetheless I will forge ahead.
The number du jour is field goal percentage – a head-scratcher I may add. Here are the current leaders:
| Rank | Name | GM | W-L | FGM | FGA | FG% |
| 1 | BYU | 26 | 20-6 | 761 | 1503 | 50.6 |
| 2 | UCLA | 27 | 20-7 | 763 | 1517 | 50.3 |
| 3 | Wake Forest | 25 | 20-5 | 742 | 1486 | 49.9 |
| 4 | Utah St. | 28 | 25-3 | 711 | 1431 | 49.7 |
| 5 | North Dakota St. | 27 | 21-6 | 786 | 1587 | 49.5 |
| 6 | Kentucky | 27 | 19-8 | 715 | 1459 | 49.0 |
| 7 | Oklahoma | 27 | 25-2 | 744 | 1520 | 48.9 |
| 8 | California | 27 | 20-7 | 735 | 1502 | 48.9 |
| 9 | Northern Ariz. | 25 | 8-17 | 643 | 1317 | 48.8 |
| 10 | Florida | 27 | 21-6 | 781 | 1600 | 48.8 |
I understand Wake Forest and Oklahoma. I guess UCLA is in the top ten because they rarely play a ranked team. Kentucky and Florida? Those shoot outs in the SEC must be helping them here. Anyone else noticed that SEC refs must have a different interpretation of traveling than everyone else? I saw more wandering pivots last night duringthe Florida/LSU game than I have seen in five Big East games combined.
Last year’s field goal percentage leaders going into the tournament:
| 1 | Utah St. | 32 | 23-9 | 840 | 1632 | 51.5 |
| 2 | Boise St. | 30 | 22-8 | 881 | 1731 | 50.9 |
| 3 | Kansas | 31 | 28-3 | 931 | 1841 | 50.6 |
| 4 | IUPUI | 31 | 25-6 | 832 | 1647 | 50.5 |
| 5 | Pacific | 30 | 21-9 | 754 | 1518 | 49.7 |
| 6 | Cornell | 27 | 22-5 | 740 | 1503 | 49.2 |
| 7 | Florida | 31 | 21-10 | 889 | 1808 | 49.2 |
| 8 | Murray St. | 31 | 18-13 | 812 | 1659 | 48.9 |
| 9 | Rider | 30 | 21-9 | 841 | 1719 | 48.9 |
| 10 | UNC Asheville | 32 | 23-9 | 874 | 1794 | 48.7 |
Kansas jumps out at me, but after that? Here are 11-20:
| 11 | Michigan St. | 31 | 24-7 | 826 | 1701 | 48.6 |
| 12 | Syracuse | 31 | 19-12 | 881 | 1815 | 48.5 |
| 13 | Northern Ariz. | 30 | 20-10 | 748 | 1541 | 48.5 |
| 14 | Southern California | 30 | 20-10 | 758 | 1564 | 48.5 |
| 15 | Nevada | 30 | 20-10 | 820 | 1695 | 48.4 |
| 16 | Oregon | 30 | 18-12 | 811 | 1677 | 48.4 |
| 17 | Gonzaga | 31 | 25-6 | 838 | 1733 | 48.4 |
| 18 | North Carolina | 31 | 29-2 | 995 | 2059 | 48.3 |
| 19 | Utah | 29 | 16-13 | 719 | 1488 | 48.3 |
| 20 | Georgetown | 29 | 25-4 | 718 | 1487 | 48.3 |
Okay UNC is there. MSU won two games, and Georgetown won a game. Other than that? Not much to be said for field goal percentage.
Two years ago:
| 1 | Florida | 34 | 29-5 | 971 | 1843 | 52.7 |
| 2 | A&M-Corpus Christi | 32 | 26-6 | 892 | 1701 | 52.4 |
| 3 | Georgetown | 32 | 26-6 | 784 | 1548 | 50.6 |
| 4 | North Carolina | 34 | 28-6 | 1070 | 2122 | 50.4 |
| 5 | Texas A&M | 31 | 25-6 | 837 | 1672 | 50.1 |
| 6 | Eastern Wash. | 29 | 15-14 | 846 | 1708 | 49.5 |
| 7 | Northern Ariz. | 30 | 18-12 | 873 | 1766 | 49.4 |
| 8 | North Carolina St. | 33 | 18-15 | 842 | 1705 | 49.4 |
| 9 | Penn | 30 | 22-8 | 815 | 1654 | 49.3 |
| 10 | BYU | 33 | 25-8 | 943 | 1914 | 49.3 |
Wow! Two of the top three made the Final Four: Florida and Georgetown. UNC advanced to the Elite Eight, and A&M was a Sweet Sixteen team.
Tune in tomorrow as I continue trying to make sense of these numbers.
Brother Reynell help me please. 
Stats courtesy of NCAA.com.
12 Responses to “Stat of the day: Field Goal Percentage”
Leave a Reply
Follow Pickin’ Splinters on:
Casey –
Try looking at “point differential” … I’m sure that will be quite revealing as the silver bullet of stats
Aunt Bea always says: “The team that scores the most points wins.” Pa he just scratches his head and says: “Can’t argue with that Aunt Bea. The team that scores the most wins – makes sense to me.”
Mark that one down – team that scores the most wins! Forgetabout e’er thing else. Dees utes gotta get one thing straight: to beat the other team, you gotta score more points. There’s no two ways about. Man I love this discussion.
Wish I could agree. We scored more runs and what did we get for it? Now I’m stuck living in a corn field. You try making a bed out of corn stalks.
I’ve been thinking for a while how all of these deeper stats have really taken the analysis to a new level in baseball, and wondered about other sports. Maybe you could become the Bill James of basketball, Casey.
I’ve never been a big fan of this stat. Especially looking down this list, you see such a big juxtaposition of styles. I hate UNC on this list because their percentage is a result of their transition game and their defense creating a whole lotta offense. But – counter attack their transition game and slow down the outlets, and they’re FG % goes way down. We’ve seen that a few times over the Roy Williams’ era. As an exmple – UNC shot 35% when they lost to Wake and still scored 89. 31 came from the charity stripe though.
REALLY surprised not to see Memphis up there from last year. Their offense seems like the quintessential style for this stat – dribble drive with Rose and get easy buckets or kick it out to CDR on pinches and hit with a pure jump shooter.
I’ve coached high school ball for a few years now and I’ve never really given much weight to this stat. But – that’s because we’re not much of a jump shooting team. I know we’re going to see nights below 20% but if we can play defense and create from that, then the brick laying becomes a little less worrisome. But if you’re a team that relies on it’s outside shot, then you’ll see teams with a high FG% take an earlier exit than others as soon as they play a real defensive team.
But who cares about all of this nonsense, as long as my team scores more than the other I bet we win 90% of the time.
Rey —
.
You just caused my light bulb to go on. (Happens every once in awhile
Casey –
Take a good look at free throws per game … both attempts and makes … but particularly FT’s made per game will have a good correlation (R-squared) with wins or winning %. Ask Chas or Pete what R-squared is … that’s a whole nother class lecture.
Patrick Reynell, I have not seen you on the bench in awhile (maybe because I don’t read all comments) but at any rate, congratulations Papa. You have been added to my daily Mass prayer list of new families. Being a parent is the best! Wally, I wish I could remember back to my stats days, but R-squared is a fleeting memory at best. However, I told Casey today that I would probably put more stock in number of FGs attempted in a game more than any FG percentage or even FTs taken or FTs attempted. Don’t know what the R-squared factor would be using FGs attempted, but do know what used to work for my team; shoot more, win more.
Chas
You have now mentioned me in the same breath with WP Kinsella in the past and now Bill James. I am flattered more than you know.
Maybe I should be more of a fan of Buzz Williams. Sounds like we have something in common.
Check this out:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/25/sports/ncaabasketball/25marquette.html?_r=2&ref=sports
Brother Reynell
Bulls eye – I was thinking the same thing as I was looking at these stats. UNC looked great until they missed 15 or 16 in a row against Georgetown in the ’07 tournament. The Hoyas did exactly as you said – took away transition. Suddenly the Heels did not know how to play. Transition baskets can be the biggest seduction in hoops. If a team has a bunch of athletes who can get out and run, that is great until they meet an opponent willing to commit to a common goal.
As for the 90%? I was thinking you might win 93% if you out score the other team every night.
Pete – Taking more FGs works as long as they opposition isn’t getting their share.
Pete – thank you. I guess that explains my absence. Having a 3 week old certainly makes for some busy days.