When will analysts stop using a single figure for field goal % for both teams and individual players? This number is especially problematic for individual players because of the significantly different rates at which they shoot 3-pointers. Saying a player is only shooting 43% doesn’t tell me anything - maybe they’re shooting 40% from 3.
This is very true, and I try to follow that most of the time. There are instances, though, where the single number can work to make a point.
For example, when I'm talking about Steph going 5-for-10 in the fourth and the rest of the team shooting seven shots, I'm just trying to emphasize how Steph-centric the 4th quarter offense has been, not cast judgment on Steph's individual play.
I also think one number can be illuminating for teams, due to the greater sample size. Highlighting that the Warriors can't hit even 40% from the field in the fourth just showcases how poorly they shot in general, because we know that a TEAM isn't going to shoot only threes, even if individual players do.
Usually, when I talk about players, I do try to give the FG%/3P%/FT% splits, or at least the first two. If I had my druthers, I'd also always include the # of attempts, in order to showcase what share of each shot type players are taking...but I've been told by multiple people that this eventually results in the readers' eyes glazing over, and I need to simplify to what's necessary to make my point.
So I'm just trying to strike a balance. Appreciate the comment!
Thanks for such a thorough reply - to be honest, I was using your commentary as the rare opportunity to put forth my argument. It seems that TNT and ESPN are just lazy when it would be so easy to split out 2-pointers and 3-pointers, which often show significant differences between teams or among players.
I do think we are slowly, slowly moving the right way. But generally speaking, the television broadcasts are always way behind the curve in a misbegotten attempt to appeal to the casual fan (as if the casual fans wouldn't want to learn things!). It is frustrating as a viewer, for sure.
*This is only tangentially related, but I've wondered in the past if the poor explanations of on-court play during broadcasts have partially contributed to the rise in second-screening during games -- fans may feel the need to seek information elsewhere and start glancing at laptops and phones to scroll through Twitter or whatever. This has the inevitable effect of taking attention away from the game itself, something you think the league would be invested in NOT encouraging!
When will analysts stop using a single figure for field goal % for both teams and individual players? This number is especially problematic for individual players because of the significantly different rates at which they shoot 3-pointers. Saying a player is only shooting 43% doesn’t tell me anything - maybe they’re shooting 40% from 3.
This is very true, and I try to follow that most of the time. There are instances, though, where the single number can work to make a point.
For example, when I'm talking about Steph going 5-for-10 in the fourth and the rest of the team shooting seven shots, I'm just trying to emphasize how Steph-centric the 4th quarter offense has been, not cast judgment on Steph's individual play.
I also think one number can be illuminating for teams, due to the greater sample size. Highlighting that the Warriors can't hit even 40% from the field in the fourth just showcases how poorly they shot in general, because we know that a TEAM isn't going to shoot only threes, even if individual players do.
Usually, when I talk about players, I do try to give the FG%/3P%/FT% splits, or at least the first two. If I had my druthers, I'd also always include the # of attempts, in order to showcase what share of each shot type players are taking...but I've been told by multiple people that this eventually results in the readers' eyes glazing over, and I need to simplify to what's necessary to make my point.
So I'm just trying to strike a balance. Appreciate the comment!
Thanks for such a thorough reply - to be honest, I was using your commentary as the rare opportunity to put forth my argument. It seems that TNT and ESPN are just lazy when it would be so easy to split out 2-pointers and 3-pointers, which often show significant differences between teams or among players.
I do think we are slowly, slowly moving the right way. But generally speaking, the television broadcasts are always way behind the curve in a misbegotten attempt to appeal to the casual fan (as if the casual fans wouldn't want to learn things!). It is frustrating as a viewer, for sure.
*This is only tangentially related, but I've wondered in the past if the poor explanations of on-court play during broadcasts have partially contributed to the rise in second-screening during games -- fans may feel the need to seek information elsewhere and start glancing at laptops and phones to scroll through Twitter or whatever. This has the inevitable effect of taking attention away from the game itself, something you think the league would be invested in NOT encouraging!