Usage and Efficiency: Allen versus Garnett

Intuitively, a scorer who serves as the clear focal point of his team's offense ought to have a lower scoring efficiency than he would have were he able to shift into a more secondary role. Playing alongside other skilled scorers should, in short, open up more opportunities for quality shots. Ray Allen seems like a good candidate for this effect, going in one offseason from being the first option in Seattle to having the third-highest usage rate on the Celtics where Kevin Garnett and Paul Pierce share the load.

As you can see, it hasn't happened. His usage rate is lower "true shooting percentage" (a figure that takes into account free throws and the fact that three pointers are worth three points) than during his Seattle days, but his TS% is nothing special -- lower than it was last season, which, in turn, is lower than it was the season before. But perhaps it's just the effect of aging. Kevin Garnett's usage rate is at its lowest point since the 1997-1998 season and he's posting a career-high TS%.

Comments

Break up the TrailBlazers.

They fucked up my Powder Blues pretty good last night.

Is Nene back yet?

Posted by Petey | December 17, 2007 1:06 PM

Interesting stat-let. I wonder if this non-relationship would hold up in the broader NBA. Seems like it probably would.

Posted by mk | December 17, 2007 1:27 PM

I've watched all of the C's games this year and Allen has been in a shooting slump most of the season. He has sat out the last two games with a sore ankle, so maybe that is part of the explanation...

Posted by Ben Guest | December 17, 2007 1:27 PM

Matthew --
Can I just again appeal, in the name of the living god, that you leave this figure filbertry in baseball where it belongs?

Posted by charles pierce | December 17, 2007 1:35 PM

Petey, your powder blues just aren't that good. They do not play good team defense, to say the least, and at the first sign of trouble, they revert to playing one on one offense. Throw in the utter lack of mental toughness, and they are a very mediocre team.

They have enough talent to win games in the regular season when opponents don't have a chance to gameplan for them. But nothing about this team tells me they will be able to exceed their one play-off win per season streak they have been building.

As for the actual content of the thread, there are a couple of reasons that Garnett and Allen probably aren't the best test cases for this question. First, it is not entirely clear that Allen was the first choice offensively in Seatlle. Rashard Lewis took a whole lot of shots two, and they played such a free-flowing style of offense the last several years that it would be tough to say the offense ran through anybody.

As for Garnett, one of the complaints about him throughout his career is his unwillingness to force his offensive game. If he is doubled, then he will always make the pass to the open guy, and then go get the rebound when that open guy clanged yet another wide open jumper. He always trusted his teammates to a fault.

Posted by Curtis | December 17, 2007 1:46 PM

I've only seen Ray Allen play once this year, but agree with Ben Guest that he didn't look 100%. Not sure this stat is all that significant. The shock from watching Boston was not that they were a good offensive team -- which is what you would expect -- but they have become a superb defensive team.

As a Lakers fan, I'm not thrilled about that, but I am happy for KG -- a classier individual or better athlete I'm not sure I've ever seen in the NBA. Love watching him make those quick-as-a-wink one-handed skip passes. Must be joy to play with that guy.

Posted by Kit Stolz | December 17, 2007 2:28 PM

"Petey, your powder blues just aren't that good. They do not play good team defense, to say the least, and at the first sign of trouble, they revert to playing one on one offense. Throw in the utter lack of mental toughness, and they are a very mediocre team."

No, they are not a very mediocre team. They are a good mediocre team at the moment.

Judge 'em in February. They get guys back around New Year's. They don't have the personnel to implement anything at the moment. But they will have the personnel if they can get healthy.

Posted by Petey | December 17, 2007 4:11 PM

This reflects a somewhat impoverished understanding of how a basketball offense works.

I could go into a long-winded explanation, but the basic point is this - the third option on a basketball offense is not really concerned with shot selection on most plays.

The first option has to be to get a high-percentage shot - that's why it's your first option. The second option should be a good shot, and the third option is pretty much any non-crazy shot (or, if the shot clock is at 2, a crazy shot).

A player who's a #1 option for a bad team who is then surrounded by better players should become more efficient if he remains the #1 option, but that's because in his previous offense he was acting as the first resort AND the last resort. See Bron-Bron's Cavs for a nice example of THAT style of offense. If LeBron were in a drive-and-dish offense instead of a "drive-and-dish and then come back to get the ball so you can launch a 24-footer with two guys in your face" he would be a more efficient player.

However, a player who was once the #1 option but is now the #3 option may see his efficiency decrease - this is OK; his team doesn't need him to be efficient, they just need him to hit a couple shots at key moments here and there.

APS

Posted by Ape Man | December 17, 2007 11:55 PM

If you've ever read Dave Berri (Wages of Wins) he points out that increased usage has almost no correlation to shooting efficiency and it is actually positive. http://dberri.wordpress.com/2006/06/11/the-law-of-diminishing-returns-in-the-nba/

Posted by Konrad | December 18, 2007 12:15 AM

That's an extremely confusing chart. In the future, a title such as "Ray Allen's stats" would help--I had to puzzle with the text to figure that out.

Posted by Antid Oto | December 18, 2007 12:45 AM

I saw RA talking about his shooting perctantage, and basically the big difference for him is that his shoots used to come off screens, without the ball, ala reggie miller, the play was designed for him and he knew if he could rub his man off he knew where he was catching and shooting, much preferable for a shooter than even a broken offense, complete open look where you are surprised to find yourself on that particular spot on the floor - run more plays designed specifically for him, please, he is a good enough ball handler and driver/finisher to make the play either way

Posted by chicagogreen | December 18, 2007 6:27 PM

Ray Allens had a terrible shooting slump for the last month.

Itll turn around, he's open for 90% of his shots. This rest from his injury will serve him and us very well.

Posted by Steve | December 18, 2007 6:42 PM

Yeah, but did you look at Paul Pierce and KG?

Posted by Cornbuck | December 19, 2007 3:25 PM

Based on that graph, Allen's true shooting percentage this year is about his average. 2006 was clearly his best year, but that point is an outlier. If anything, this graph suggests that he's just as efficient as he usually is while taking fewer shots. I don't see a statistically significant effect of decreased usage at all.

Posted by Eric | December 19, 2007 4:38 PM

For an article title "Allen vs. Garnett", I would have thought we were going to see a graphic that compared Allen vs. Garnett. Perhaps that is why people are having trouble reading the graph. Axis labels would help, too.

Posted by Eric | December 19, 2007 5:25 PM