2 Comments

I find it hard to look at these figures as predictive/causal of winning. Is a team that has been making more shots (and allowing less) over this short sample actually performing better, or just lucky?

Of course, you addressed this in your caveats. I’m curious how much predictive value you personally think eFG% has in this context.

Expand full comment
author

Yeah, I think "luck" or "variance" plays a larger role than we would like to admit or that we can all even understand. I'm more fascinated by teams that can overcome a low EFG and win by adding possessions via turnovers or rebounds.

I don't think a high eFG% is necessarily predictive in small samples like this, but I will say things like 2PT% feel more sustainable or predictive where 3PT% can be wildly unpredictable based on the volume and different contexts.

UConn is a good example, probably benefitting from some luck on 3PT defense and some bad luck on 3PT offense, but my assumption is the high 2PT offense has a lot to do with how they're generating stops and getting out for easy buckets.

Expand full comment