Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 62
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    16,063
    vCash
    1500

    PPS (Points Per Shot)

    I've always used this as a quick way to gauge a players efficiency offensively.

    It seems like a great all in one stat. Am I over simplifying things or is this really a great stat?

    Any factors it doesn't take into account?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    3,716
    vCash
    1500
    What if you get fouled all the time and score 30 points on 0 shot attempts? What Point Per Shot will be then?

    To answer your question: Its a stupid stat.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    656
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Minimal View Post
    What if you get fouled all the time and score 30 points on 0 shot attempts? What Point Per Shot will be then?

    To answer your question: Its a stupid stat.
    lol. The best player ever, taking 0 shots to get 30 points.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    16,063
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Minimal View Post
    What if you get fouled all the time and score 30 points on 0 shot attempts? What Point Per Shot will be then?

    To answer your question: Its a stupid stat.
    So its a stupid stat based on something that has never happened and never will? Even if it happens 1 game, over the course of a season, is it not a great offensive efficiency indicator all in one?

    I mean most of the efficient scorers get to the FT line alot.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    656
    vCash
    1500
    TS% is a better evaluation of efficiency of every single shot you take in a game, including free throws.

    Points per shot doesn't take into account freethrows.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    3,716
    vCash
    1500
    Ray Allen 188 FGA 272 PTS 1.45 PPS
    LeBron James 419 FGA 579 PTS 1.38 PPS
    Dwight Howard 290 FGA 470 PTS 1.62 PPS

    What does this stat says? It doesn't say anything. Guys like Howard will have a bigger PPS because of his type of play and the ammount of times he gets to free throw line and Ray Allen will have a bigger PPS than LeBron because he shoots 3s with great effiency, but they both are not better than LeBron, am I right?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    656
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Minimal View Post
    Ray Allen 188 FGA 272 PTS 1.45 PPS
    LeBron James 419 FGA 579 PTS 1.38 PPS
    Dwight Howard 290 FGA 470 PTS 1.62 PPS

    What does this stat says? It doesn't say anything. Guys like Howard will have a bigger PPS because of his type of play and Ray Allen will have a bigger PPS than LeBron because he shoots 3s with great effiency, but they both are not better than LeBron, am I right?
    yes. Absolutely. I think points per possession is a little more useful than pps.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    3,716
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Money_23 View Post
    yes. Absolutely. I think points per possession is a little more useful than pps.
    Indeed. Points per possesion is basically Offensive Rating which is already used in the NBA. PPS might be useful if there was no 3 point line and free throws in the NBA.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    16,715
    vCash
    1500
    I like points per possession better myself since it also factors in turnovers

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cowgary
    Posts
    2,510
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Minimal View Post
    Indeed. Points per possesion is basically Offensive Rating which is already used in the NBA. PPS might be useful if there was no 3 point line and free throws in the NBA.
    I'm only just starting to understand more about advanced stats, but as an objective observer here's what I think.....

    I think that as far as efficiency pps is an okay stat. True shooting% tells me that if you only take a shot or 2 you can have crazy efficiency but pps also takes usage into account. I understand its flaws, but to use the example above, if you get fouled 15 times and hit 30 free throws, isn't that pretty efficient? It may not tell the whole story behind your game but to be fouled every single time you shoot is an indicator that the other team doesn't want you to put up any shots.
    Also, if you take and make 3's, why shouldn't that be taken into account? It's basically saying that for every shot attempt you take, you either score a certain amount of points or get fouled and hit the free throws that add up to so much. Makes sense to me on the outside.


    "Juuuuuuuuuuuuust a bit outside. Wild Thing tried for the corner and missed."

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    16,063
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Money_23 View Post
    TS% is a better evaluation of efficiency of every single shot you take in a game, including free throws.

    Points per shot doesn't take into account freethrows.
    It does though, it rewards guys who get to the FT line alot, as should be.

    Gallinari for instance, always a low FG% shooter, but he gets to the FT line alot and hits 3's so overall he's an efficient scorer. Whereas a guy like Josh Smith, who shoots a much higher % from the field, has a lower PPS because he doesn't draw as many fouls or hits 3's like Gallo.

    PPS takes this into account because if Gallo is fouled on a shot attempt, its not an official shot attempt, yet he will get points at the FT line.

    Thus a guy like Gallinari will score about 15ppg on 10 FGA PG.
    Last edited by nycericanguy; 12-21-2012 at 10:42 AM.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Windsor, Earth's Rectum (as reported by Stephen Colbert).
    Posts
    8,029
    vCash
    1500
    I like PPS a lot actually (or rather, points per attempted FG). It is similar to TS%, but at the same time slightly different. Because there are players who rely on the 3 pointer a lot, and some who don't have a 3pt shot, but do know how to draw a foul (John Wall for example, is a HORRIBLE shooter, but, he can draw a foul). So John Wall average 1.2 points per shot last season, but it would have been much worse if he was unable to draw fouls like he does.

    Kobe has a 3pt shot AND can draw a foul. On his career he gets 1.3 points per shot. LBJ gets 1.35 points per shot on his career (he's got a 3pt shot and can draw fouls and has a better overall FG% than Kobe.

    Looking at greats like Jordan. Jordan average 1.31. Hakeem averaged 1.28 points per shot, so while he had a higher FG% than Jordan, Jordan drew more fouls and had the three point shot available to him. Wilt was 1.33 points per shot, slightly higher than Jordan. So his FG% helped a lot since he had no 3pt shot and was horrid from the line. Shaq was a very impressiv 1.47 points per shot.

    The stat can be misleaing though. Tyson Chandler, this season, is averaging 1.9 poitns per shot. Pretty impressive. But we all know that he is nowhere as good a scorer as LBJ, Durant or Kobe. He is just a player who knows his own limits and doesn't step outside is comfort zone. In 2010/2011 Love got 1.4 points per shot, which is very impressive for a guy who shoots as much as he does.

    Ultimately, like all stats, it needs to be put in context. Chander dunks. That's all he does. He knows he can't shoot and so doesnt, and in turn his PPS is VERY high. You can't compare his PP@ to Kobe and Love and Durant and LBJ, but you can compare LBJ and Durant and Kobe, because they all take a a fair amount of 3s and all draw a lot of fouls.

    When comparing generations, it gets tricky, as it usually does, because older guys didn't have the 3pt available, while guys who are playing right now likely get more fouls than guys would have gotten in the 90's and 80's when hand checking was allowed. Those thigns factor is.


    What is great about it though is that for high volume shooters, it takes away the advantage that Cs and PFs have over SFs and SGs. Generally you can look at a PF or C and say: Hakeem had a higher FG% than Jordan, or Shaq had a higher FG% than Kobe. Which is true, but when you look at their PPS, it gives you a better indication because it includes points from 3s and FTs.


    I think it is a great stat. When used in context with other stats, it does give you a good indication of a players effciency. Like, for example, I am very hard on John Wall. I think his FG% is awful and that he will not be in the league by the time he hits 30 unless he brings that up. But he is also able to draw a lot of fouls, so his PPS isn't as bad as his FG% and 3PT% might lead you to believe it is.
    Last edited by JasonJohnHorn; 12-21-2012 at 11:02 AM.
    What the eye doesn't see and the mind doesn't know, doesn't exist.
    Follow me on Twitter and I'll follow back: @JasonJHorn

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    16,063
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Minimal View Post
    Indeed. Points per possesion is basically Offensive Rating which is already used in the NBA. PPS might be useful if there was no 3 point line and free throws in the NBA.
    Unless I'm not understanding something, I think its the complete opposite, its useful BECAUSE it includes 3's and FT's which are big factors in a players offensive efficiency.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Windsor, Earth's Rectum (as reported by Stephen Colbert).
    Posts
    8,029
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Minimal View Post
    Ray Allen 188 FGA 272 PTS 1.45 PPS
    LeBron James 419 FGA 579 PTS 1.38 PPS
    Dwight Howard 290 FGA 470 PTS 1.62 PPS

    What does this stat says? It doesn't say anything. Guys like Howard will have a bigger PPS because of his type of play and the ammount of times he gets to free throw line and Ray Allen will have a bigger PPS than LeBron because he shoots 3s with great effiency, but they both are not better than LeBron, am I right?
    I would agree, that just because somebody has a higher PPS that they are not always a better player because of it. I mean, LBJ creates offense for his team via assists and is a great rebounder. And can be relied on more to score. Allen doesnt rebound or pass as well as LBJ. Howard is a better rebounder, but he isn't as good a shooter or as good a play maker. So other things have to be taken into consideration.

    Being a volume scorer as well needs to be taken into consideration. Chandler has got like a 1.8 PPS this season. So on paper you'd say, well just keep giving him the ball. but he only gets the ball when he's in a position to dunk. He can't create his own shot. He gets his shots when perimiter players break the defence and his guy has to come over to help and leave him open. this happens a lot fo Dwight as well, combined with the pick-and-roll plays that are run for him. Those lead to high percentage shots.

    So yeah, Howard and Chandler can't create for themselves tehy way Durant, LBJ, Melo and Kobe can, so you can't fairly compare their PPS numbers.

    You can however compare Durant and LBJ and Kobe and Love andn Melo. these guys are all high volume shooters who create for themselves.


    So while PPS can be misleading out of context, in context it can be helpful when you compare like players.

    Every stats needs to be put in context to be useful. PPG is useless with FG% and 3PT% and FT%. Rebounds per game can be misleading if you don't consider minutes player. You might think that Durant is a better rebounder than Ibaka because he gets more boards, but he also gets 10 minutes more a game and averages less than 1 rebound more.

    A player might score 30 points per game next to a guy who scores 20 a game, but if the guy who scores 20 is getting it with a higher percentages in fewer minutes, the guy socring 20 might be the better scorer.


    Every stat needs to be put in context, and when you put PPS in context, it can be very helpful.
    Last edited by JasonJohnHorn; 12-21-2012 at 11:04 AM.
    What the eye doesn't see and the mind doesn't know, doesn't exist.
    Follow me on Twitter and I'll follow back: @JasonJHorn

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    656
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by nycericanguy View Post
    It does though, it rewards guys who get to the FT line alot, as should be.

    Gallinari for instance, always a low FG% shooter, but he gets to the FT line alot and hits 3's so overall he's an efficient scorer.

    PPS takes this into account because if Gallo is fouled on a shot attempt, its not an official shot attempt, yet he will get points at the FT line.

    Thus a guy like Gallinari will score about 15ppg on 10 FGA PG.
    I know, I meant it doesn't take into account as a shot attempt even though it counts towards your point total.

    I just think you shouldn't take freethrow points into consideration into PPS because it can make an inefficient shooter look better.

    example:

    player A: 8-10 FG 0 FT ------- 16points --- PPS: 1.6
    player B: 4-10 FG 8/8 FT ----- 16points --- PPS: 1.6

    PPS are the same but which player would you rather take when you look at the statlines? Remember missing field goals could lead to potential fast breaks, which are things you don't want. Sure free throws are always good to have because it slows the game down and you are guaranteed to not get a fast break from the opposition, but under what circumstance is someone getting 0 shot attempts and drawing fouls every possession? Never.

    so I'd rather take the higher FG% guy in this case.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •