Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Effective FG pct. (eFG pct.--scroll down for 2005 figures)
eFG pct. = (FGM + (0.5 x 3PM))/FGA
About this stat....
A straight field goal percentage is fine as far as it goes (better than rebounds-per-game, certainly) but, since the advent of the three-point shot, it’s less informative than the following:
Effective FG pct. = (FGM + (0.5 x 3PM))/FGA
For instance—Illinois ranked second in the Big Ten last year in straight FG pct. in conference play:
Michigan State: .498 (431/866)
Illinois: .485 (432/890)
But, of course, the Illini attempted many more three point shots (351) than did the Spartans (283) and, as the old saying goes, making a third of your three-pointers is just as good as making half your two-pointers.
So the fact that Illinois shot .013 lower from the field than did Michigan State is misleading when unaccompanied by the additional fact that Bruce Weber’s team sank a very healthy share of those three-pointers:
Illinois eFG pct. = (432 + (0.5 x 145))/890 = (432 + 72.5)/890 = 504.5/890 = .567
Michigan State eFG pct. = (431 + (0.5 x 93))/866 = (431 + 46.5)/866 = 477.5/866 = .551
An eFG pct. merely recognizes mathematical reality: a made three-pointer is worth 0.5 more than a made two-pointer. Using a straight FG pct. in the presence of the three-point shot, then, is roughly analogous to calculating a batting average using plate appearances instead of official at-bats.
2005, conference games only
1. Illinois (.567)
2. Michigan State (.551)
3. Northwestern (.544)
4. Indiana (.520)
5. Wisconsin (.515)
6. Ohio State (.501)
7. Iowa (.494)
8. Michigan (.490)
9. Purdue (.482)
10. Minnesota (.455)
11. Penn State (.442)
Opponent eFG pct.
1. Minnesota (.473)
2. Ohio State (.480)
3. Iowa (.482)
4. Indiana (.484)
5. Wisconsin (.491)
6. Illinois (.496)
7. Michigan State (.497)
8. Purdue (.510)
9. Michigan (.521)
10. Penn State (.561)
11. Northwestern (.565)
¶ 1:25 AM
eFG pct. = (FGM + (0.5 x 3PM))/FGA
About this stat....
A straight field goal percentage is fine as far as it goes (better than rebounds-per-game, certainly) but, since the advent of the three-point shot, it’s less informative than the following:
Effective FG pct. = (FGM + (0.5 x 3PM))/FGA
For instance—Illinois ranked second in the Big Ten last year in straight FG pct. in conference play:
Michigan State: .498 (431/866)
Illinois: .485 (432/890)
But, of course, the Illini attempted many more three point shots (351) than did the Spartans (283) and, as the old saying goes, making a third of your three-pointers is just as good as making half your two-pointers.
So the fact that Illinois shot .013 lower from the field than did Michigan State is misleading when unaccompanied by the additional fact that Bruce Weber’s team sank a very healthy share of those three-pointers:
Illinois eFG pct. = (432 + (0.5 x 145))/890 = (432 + 72.5)/890 = 504.5/890 = .567
Michigan State eFG pct. = (431 + (0.5 x 93))/866 = (431 + 46.5)/866 = 477.5/866 = .551
An eFG pct. merely recognizes mathematical reality: a made three-pointer is worth 0.5 more than a made two-pointer. Using a straight FG pct. in the presence of the three-point shot, then, is roughly analogous to calculating a batting average using plate appearances instead of official at-bats.
2005, conference games only
1. Illinois (.567)
2. Michigan State (.551)
3. Northwestern (.544)
4. Indiana (.520)
5. Wisconsin (.515)
6. Ohio State (.501)
7. Iowa (.494)
8. Michigan (.490)
9. Purdue (.482)
10. Minnesota (.455)
11. Penn State (.442)
Opponent eFG pct.
1. Minnesota (.473)
2. Ohio State (.480)
3. Iowa (.482)
4. Indiana (.484)
5. Wisconsin (.491)
6. Illinois (.496)
7. Michigan State (.497)
8. Purdue (.510)
9. Michigan (.521)
10. Penn State (.561)
11. Northwestern (.565)
¶ 1:25 AM
