Welcome back Statheads to another editions of "By the Numbers" brought to you by yet another Greg Monroe Double-Double. As I mentioned in my previous two posts on this subject, it is essential to have comparables in all cases. So here are the links to my previous two posts in case you want to compare:
With Ben Gordon, we'll see our largest dataset to date with more than 536 games played. Additionally, we'll see an interesting tidbit that I pulled with regards to how these datasets break down that provides some insight into why Ben may not be performing at the same level he was in Chicago...or at the very least put the spotlight on the perplexing lack of minutes Ben receives.
So what is this interesting tidbit you ask? Well, in 398 games played for Chicago, Ben Gordon racked up a whopping 16 games with less than 15 minutes played. Meanwhile, in Detroit land, Ben has logged 9 games in a mere 138 games. So 3.8% of all games played, BG got only 15 minutes of play in Chicago vs. 6.5% in Detroit. Sure this is still a small % of BG's total games played, but when you're paying a guy $60M, you'd think you'd want to get your money's worth. For example, on the rare occasion that I've purchased a Penthouse, regardless of my relative attraction to the women within, I get my god damn money's worth. In any event, on to the stats...
Ben Gordon Stats All-up (I've removed some of the cumulative totals for FGs Made FGs attempted, etc. in hopes of making this easier to view without having to click into a new web page):
Once again we see the steady incline in all-up stats that we've seen with Will and Ramon. It should be noted though that Ben Gordon's scoring curve is the best of the 3 which given BG's main tool on the floor is his ability to score is no real surprise. So does BG score more efficiently in extended minutes? YOU'RE GOD DAMN RIGHT HE DOES! Look at this shit:
LOOK...AT...THAT! Impressive right? The guy scores...in...bunches when he gets extended minutes. Now I'm sure you're saying, "Well Boourns, obviously he plays longer minutes when he's shooting well!" And you would be correct. But his largest dataset by more than double is 30+ MPG where he's registered 260 games. So that assumption is likely to be normalized by the sheer size of the dataset . But what about his shooting percentages...that totally matters too. And you're right, it does:
AND BOOM GOES THE DYNAMITE. Yup. Ben Gordon also shoots more effectively in extended minutes logging his best FG% and 3P% when playing 30+ MPG. So at the end of all this, I came to yet another conclusion (so many conclusions...if only the season's conclusion could come so quickly). When determining if a player is a volume shooter/needs shots to shoot more effectively, it doesn't really make any sense to break it down by MPG. It actually makes MORE sense to bust it out by FGA...so here we go y'all:
That's right folks. I think we can close the books that Ben Gordon is a pure volume shooter. His ability to contribute to his team when he's not shooting isn't that great with none of his other stats spiking when he's shooting less despite averaging 22 minutes per game in the 0-10 FGA dataset. While it's certainly impressive that a player can shoot that well in high volumes, I still don't like Ben Gordon or any volume shooters for that matter.
I don't like the idea of a player having to take 15-20 shots just to be effective because I believe it limits your option on offense in any given game. What happens if Moose happens to be on fire? In order to feed the Moose, you have to take possessions away from BG and ultimately reduce his effectiveness to a significantly lower tier as the graph shows above. We should be aiming for players that regardless of # of attempts, shoot consistently. Are these players out there? I'm sure they are. In fact, I bet Arron Afflalo is one of them. So Arron, you're next.
NOW YOUR THOUGHTS!