martin wrote:

mreinman wrote:

fishmike wrote:

mreinman wrote:We lead the league this year in 10-16 footers. We are bout 5th in 16-23's. Both are too high.

On most teams, players take or fake the 3 and drive it much deeper and hope to either hit a close shot, get fouled, or draw the defenders so that you can rekick it out for a 3.

Never a really good excuse to settle for long 2's (though of course some are inevitable).

this didnt answer my question at all. Check the original post.

I think that it may be better than a contested 3 but not necessarily a good shot. They are not taking the shot that they want but the shot that the defense wants them to take.

We have actually been doing a great job of running teams off the 3 ball this year (kudos to fish for that). The problem is that when we run them off they are getting penetration. We would/should be thrilled that instead of penetrating, they would pull up for long 2's. Unfortunately, they don't care what we want.

long 2's have a place but those are situational (e.g. end of the shot clock, end of quarters, where nothing else is working, if you have guards who are too slow to penetrate, ...)

I don't agree with the firs statement (it's just too generic and without base) and think you are taking the stat argument regarding long 2's to a place where it doesn't have meaning.

This is basketball not statball. Stats can help inform and can certainly be used to compare and sway teams towards an overall course of action but it's not as precise as you have made it out to be.

I mean, no player is thinking to themselves, "long 2, probably shouldn't shoot unless it's shot clock time", and that's where you just took your argument.

You can look at the #s and stats and make generalizations, and they may be accurate. However the usefullness ends when it comes to translating that to players in the heat of the moment. Its why I made the specific examples of the long 2's I see us take, and asked the specific question regarding those shots (which I have not gotten an answer on).

I see most of the long 2s we are taking as good open looks, usually because we pass on a contested 3.

mreinman wrote:

fishmike wrote:

mreinman wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

mreinman wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

mreinman wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

mreinman wrote:

jrodmc wrote:Unless of course you're shooting the same percentage on 3-10 footers that you are on long 2's. Which we are.

FG% by Distance	FG% by Distance	FG% by Distance
3 -- 10	           10 -- 16	    16 <3
0.376	            0.376	    0.365

Not trying to defend not taking threes, but we don't have alot of terribly efficient threats from out there currently. Yes, that's a knock on Melo

not sure where you are going with this. Are you saying that long 2's are fine since we are shooting them at the same pct as 3-10's?

mreinman wrote:Never a really good excuse to settle for long 2's (though of course some are inevitable).

Are you saying it's better to miss from 3 feet than from 10-23 feet? Help me out.

yes. would you rather attempt and miss a 23 footer or a 21 footer?

Do I get the same amount of points for either miss? Bonn??? where's Bonn???

can't miss em all.

Can we assume x misses from both spots and x hits? Or is it all black and white?

long 2's still count as 2, right? And short 2's still count as 2, right? And we have established that as a team are fairly sucky right now at the 3, right?

So if you're whole team shows an ability to hit a 16 footer just as easily as they hit a 3 footer, can you tell me what the effin difference is? Please? I mean, comparing multi-million dollar pro athletes to what us normal humans can do is cute, but doesn't quite make much sense.

Maintaining that .376 equals .376. In this version of this universe, anyway.

I understand that this whole long 2 issue might be some diabolical plan for Melo to cause us to lose more games, but other than that, I'm not getting it.

we are shooting the 3 at 35.5% as a team. How is that sucky and how the hell is 36 (or even 46)% from anywhere inside the line as goot as 36.5 from outside (efg)?

does EFG% take into account that 75% of all NBA rebounds go to the defense?

3's have a better chanced at being rebounded then long 2's.

mreinman wrote:

fishmike wrote:

mreinman wrote:

fishmike wrote:

mreinman wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

mreinman wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

mreinman wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

mreinman wrote:

jrodmc wrote:Unless of course you're shooting the same percentage on 3-10 footers that you are on long 2's. Which we are.

FG% by Distance	FG% by Distance	FG% by Distance
3 -- 10	           10 -- 16	    16 <3
0.376	            0.376	    0.365

Not trying to defend not taking threes, but we don't have alot of terribly efficient threats from out there currently. Yes, that's a knock on Melo

not sure where you are going with this. Are you saying that long 2's are fine since we are shooting them at the same pct as 3-10's?

mreinman wrote:Never a really good excuse to settle for long 2's (though of course some are inevitable).

Are you saying it's better to miss from 3 feet than from 10-23 feet? Help me out.

yes. would you rather attempt and miss a 23 footer or a 21 footer?

Do I get the same amount of points for either miss? Bonn??? where's Bonn???

can't miss em all.

Can we assume x misses from both spots and x hits? Or is it all black and white?

long 2's still count as 2, right? And short 2's still count as 2, right? And we have established that as a team are fairly sucky right now at the 3, right?

So if you're whole team shows an ability to hit a 16 footer just as easily as they hit a 3 footer, can you tell me what the effin difference is? Please? I mean, comparing multi-million dollar pro athletes to what us normal humans can do is cute, but doesn't quite make much sense.

Maintaining that .376 equals .376. In this version of this universe, anyway.

I understand that this whole long 2 issue might be some diabolical plan for Melo to cause us to lose more games, but other than that, I'm not getting it.

we are shooting the 3 at 35.5% as a team. How is that sucky and how the hell is 36 (or even 46)% from anywhere inside the line as goot as 36.5 from outside (efg)?

does EFG% take into account that 75% of all NBA rebounds go to the defense?

3's have a better chanced at being rebounded then long 2's.

so the answer is no then Im assuming? Can you prove this statement?

http://courtvisionanalytics.com/where-do-rebounds-go/

FG% is not an outdated or useless stat, not when 75% of all boards are defensive.

fishmike wrote:

mreinman wrote:

fishmike wrote:

mreinman wrote:

fishmike wrote:

mreinman wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

mreinman wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

mreinman wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

mreinman wrote:

jrodmc wrote:Unless of course you're shooting the same percentage on 3-10 footers that you are on long 2's. Which we are.

FG% by Distance	FG% by Distance	FG% by Distance
3 -- 10	           10 -- 16	    16 <3
0.376	            0.376	    0.365

Not trying to defend not taking threes, but we don't have alot of terribly efficient threats from out there currently. Yes, that's a knock on Melo

not sure where you are going with this. Are you saying that long 2's are fine since we are shooting them at the same pct as 3-10's?

mreinman wrote:Never a really good excuse to settle for long 2's (though of course some are inevitable).

Are you saying it's better to miss from 3 feet than from 10-23 feet? Help me out.

yes. would you rather attempt and miss a 23 footer or a 21 footer?

Do I get the same amount of points for either miss? Bonn??? where's Bonn???

can't miss em all.

Can we assume x misses from both spots and x hits? Or is it all black and white?

long 2's still count as 2, right? And short 2's still count as 2, right? And we have established that as a team are fairly sucky right now at the 3, right?

So if you're whole team shows an ability to hit a 16 footer just as easily as they hit a 3 footer, can you tell me what the effin difference is? Please? I mean, comparing multi-million dollar pro athletes to what us normal humans can do is cute, but doesn't quite make much sense.

Maintaining that .376 equals .376. In this version of this universe, anyway.

I understand that this whole long 2 issue might be some diabolical plan for Melo to cause us to lose more games, but other than that, I'm not getting it.

we are shooting the 3 at 35.5% as a team. How is that sucky and how the hell is 36 (or even 46)% from anywhere inside the line as goot as 36.5 from outside (efg)?

does EFG% take into account that 75% of all NBA rebounds go to the defense?

3's have a better chanced at being rebounded then long 2's.

so the answer is no then Im assuming? Can you prove this statement?

http://courtvisionanalytics.com/where-do-rebounds-go/

I can tell by his verbage you take this guy as gospel. The greater % of rebounds from 3s vs. long 2s isnt clear at all.

FG% is not an outdated or useless stat, not when 75% of all boards are defensive.

There are a ton of articles written on this topic. Read them and lets revisit (if you'd like). Dismissing years of researching with a backhanded one liner is really not fair to this topic.

nixluva wrote:Knicks are 3rd in the league in Offensive Rebounds

Knicks are 20th in 3pt attempts, which is 8 fewer attempts than the Warriors.
It seems to me that not having a lot of confident 3pt shooters has some impact on that. Still it wouldn't be that hard to improve on those numbers with a bit more focus on taking 3's.

The simple fact is that this team needs to start shooting better PERIOD! They need to be more efficient in the post as well as attacking the rim off dribble penetration and cuts to the basket. Offensively this team hasn't yet hit it's stride from what i've seen. If we can get the bench back to playing fast and pushing the pace that would help tremendously. This is where Fish has to re-establish the bench as a change of pace group and stop using Seraphin so much with the speed group IMO.

FG% is without a doubt the MOST IMPORTANT STAT there is. When the shot doesnt go in good things happen for the defense.

Last year.. of the top 12 teams in FG% ONLY the Heat failed to make the playoffs. The 8 lowest teams in FG% ALL MISSED the playoffs.

mreinman wrote:

fishmike wrote:

mreinman wrote:

fishmike wrote:

mreinman wrote:

fishmike wrote:

mreinman wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

mreinman wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

mreinman wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

mreinman wrote:

jrodmc wrote:Unless of course you're shooting the same percentage on 3-10 footers that you are on long 2's. Which we are.

FG% by Distance	FG% by Distance	FG% by Distance
3 -- 10	           10 -- 16	    16 <3
0.376	            0.376	    0.365

Not trying to defend not taking threes, but we don't have alot of terribly efficient threats from out there currently. Yes, that's a knock on Melo

not sure where you are going with this. Are you saying that long 2's are fine since we are shooting them at the same pct as 3-10's?

mreinman wrote:Never a really good excuse to settle for long 2's (though of course some are inevitable).

Are you saying it's better to miss from 3 feet than from 10-23 feet? Help me out.

yes. would you rather attempt and miss a 23 footer or a 21 footer?

Do I get the same amount of points for either miss? Bonn??? where's Bonn???

can't miss em all.

Can we assume x misses from both spots and x hits? Or is it all black and white?

long 2's still count as 2, right? And short 2's still count as 2, right? And we have established that as a team are fairly sucky right now at the 3, right?

So if you're whole team shows an ability to hit a 16 footer just as easily as they hit a 3 footer, can you tell me what the effin difference is? Please? I mean, comparing multi-million dollar pro athletes to what us normal humans can do is cute, but doesn't quite make much sense.

Maintaining that .376 equals .376. In this version of this universe, anyway.

I understand that this whole long 2 issue might be some diabolical plan for Melo to cause us to lose more games, but other than that, I'm not getting it.

we are shooting the 3 at 35.5% as a team. How is that sucky and how the hell is 36 (or even 46)% from anywhere inside the line as goot as 36.5 from outside (efg)?

does EFG% take into account that 75% of all NBA rebounds go to the defense?

3's have a better chanced at being rebounded then long 2's.

so the answer is no then Im assuming? Can you prove this statement?

http://courtvisionanalytics.com/where-do-rebounds-go/

I can tell by his verbage you take this guy as gospel. The greater % of rebounds from 3s vs. long 2s isnt clear at all.

FG% is not an outdated or useless stat, not when 75% of all boards are defensive.

There are a ton of articles written on this topic. Read them and lets revisit (if you'd like). Dismissing years of researching with a backhanded one liner is really not fair to this topic.

So your take is not if someone doesnt agree with the analytic experts its because they arent informed?

There are many many stats to look at in basketball. Which is more important than FG%

You make blanket statements that arent true, Im asking you back them up. Your response is go read more and come back to me?

mreinman wrote:

fishmike wrote:

mreinman wrote:

fishmike wrote:

mreinman wrote:

fishmike wrote:

mreinman wrote:

fishmike wrote:

mreinman wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

mreinman wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

mreinman wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

mreinman wrote:

jrodmc wrote:Unless of course you're shooting the same percentage on 3-10 footers that you are on long 2's. Which we are.

FG% by Distance	FG% by Distance	FG% by Distance
3 -- 10	           10 -- 16	    16 <3
0.376	            0.376	    0.365

Not trying to defend not taking threes, but we don't have alot of terribly efficient threats from out there currently. Yes, that's a knock on Melo

not sure where you are going with this. Are you saying that long 2's are fine since we are shooting them at the same pct as 3-10's?

mreinman wrote:Never a really good excuse to settle for long 2's (though of course some are inevitable).

Are you saying it's better to miss from 3 feet than from 10-23 feet? Help me out.

yes. would you rather attempt and miss a 23 footer or a 21 footer?

Do I get the same amount of points for either miss? Bonn??? where's Bonn???

can't miss em all.

Can we assume x misses from both spots and x hits? Or is it all black and white?

long 2's still count as 2, right? And short 2's still count as 2, right? And we have established that as a team are fairly sucky right now at the 3, right?

So if you're whole team shows an ability to hit a 16 footer just as easily as they hit a 3 footer, can you tell me what the effin difference is? Please? I mean, comparing multi-million dollar pro athletes to what us normal humans can do is cute, but doesn't quite make much sense.

Maintaining that .376 equals .376. In this version of this universe, anyway.

I understand that this whole long 2 issue might be some diabolical plan for Melo to cause us to lose more games, but other than that, I'm not getting it.

we are shooting the 3 at 35.5% as a team. How is that sucky and how the hell is 36 (or even 46)% from anywhere inside the line as goot as 36.5 from outside (efg)?

does EFG% take into account that 75% of all NBA rebounds go to the defense?

3's have a better chanced at being rebounded then long 2's.

so the answer is no then Im assuming? Can you prove this statement?

http://courtvisionanalytics.com/where-do-rebounds-go/

I can tell by his verbage you take this guy as gospel. The greater % of rebounds from 3s vs. long 2s isnt clear at all.

FG% is not an outdated or useless stat, not when 75% of all boards are defensive.

There are a ton of articles written on this topic. Read them and lets revisit (if you'd like). Dismissing years of researching with a backhanded one liner is really not fair to this topic.

Dismissing years of research... all I did was state the obvious. Do scouts have years of research under their belts? You know the ones who use the eye test?

So your take is not if someone doesnt agree with the analytic experts its because they arent informed?

There are many many stats to look at in basketball. Which is more important than FG%

You make blanket statements that arent true, Im asking you back them up. Your response is go read more and come back to me?

You are dismissing things as if they are not being implemented now by pretty much every team.

I am not here to back up everything that you present as fishmike opinions. mreinman thinks that players should only dunk because that is the best shot.

you are arguing things as if it were 10 years ago. Things that are clearly not up for argument anymore.

Follow what is happening in the game. If FG were the most important stat then nobody would be shooting 3's.

I follow what is happening to the game. Its why I posted stats from LAST YEAR. Top 10 teams in FG% all playoff teams. Bottom 8 teams in FG% all lottery teams. Pretty clear no?

mreinman wrote:

fishmike wrote:

mreinman wrote:

fishmike wrote:

mreinman wrote:

fishmike wrote:

mreinman wrote:

fishmike wrote:

mreinman wrote:

fishmike wrote:

mreinman wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

mreinman wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

mreinman wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

mreinman wrote:

jrodmc wrote:Unless of course you're shooting the same percentage on 3-10 footers that you are on long 2's. Which we are.

FG% by Distance	FG% by Distance	FG% by Distance
3 -- 10	           10 -- 16	    16 <3
0.376	            0.376	    0.365

Not trying to defend not taking threes, but we don't have alot of terribly efficient threats from out there currently. Yes, that's a knock on Melo

not sure where you are going with this. Are you saying that long 2's are fine since we are shooting them at the same pct as 3-10's?

mreinman wrote:Never a really good excuse to settle for long 2's (though of course some are inevitable).

Are you saying it's better to miss from 3 feet than from 10-23 feet? Help me out.

yes. would you rather attempt and miss a 23 footer or a 21 footer?

Do I get the same amount of points for either miss? Bonn??? where's Bonn???

can't miss em all.

Can we assume x misses from both spots and x hits? Or is it all black and white?

long 2's still count as 2, right? And short 2's still count as 2, right? And we have established that as a team are fairly sucky right now at the 3, right?

So if you're whole team shows an ability to hit a 16 footer just as easily as they hit a 3 footer, can you tell me what the effin difference is? Please? I mean, comparing multi-million dollar pro athletes to what us normal humans can do is cute, but doesn't quite make much sense.

Maintaining that .376 equals .376. In this version of this universe, anyway.

I understand that this whole long 2 issue might be some diabolical plan for Melo to cause us to lose more games, but other than that, I'm not getting it.

we are shooting the 3 at 35.5% as a team. How is that sucky and how the hell is 36 (or even 46)% from anywhere inside the line as goot as 36.5 from outside (efg)?

does EFG% take into account that 75% of all NBA rebounds go to the defense?

3's have a better chanced at being rebounded then long 2's.

so the answer is no then Im assuming? Can you prove this statement?

http://courtvisionanalytics.com/where-do-rebounds-go/

I can tell by his verbage you take this guy as gospel. The greater % of rebounds from 3s vs. long 2s isnt clear at all.

FG% is not an outdated or useless stat, not when 75% of all boards are defensive.

There are a ton of articles written on this topic. Read them and lets revisit (if you'd like). Dismissing years of researching with a backhanded one liner is really not fair to this topic.

Dismissing years of research... all I did was state the obvious. Do scouts have years of research under their belts? You know the ones who use the eye test?

So your take is not if someone doesnt agree with the analytic experts its because they arent informed?

There are many many stats to look at in basketball. Which is more important than FG%

You make blanket statements that arent true, Im asking you back them up. Your response is go read more and come back to me?

You are dismissing things as if they are not being implemented now by pretty much every team.

I am not here to back up everything that you present as fishmike opinions. mreinman thinks that players should only dunk because that is the best shot.

you are arguing things as if it were 10 years ago. Things that are clearly not up for argument anymore.

Follow what is happening in the game. If FG were the most important stat then nobody would be shooting 3's.

Lots of teams shot the 3 ten years ago. There is no need to be angry or fired up.

I follow what is happening to the game. Its why I posted stats from LAST YEAR. Top 10 teams in FG% all playoff teams. Bottom 8 teams in FG% all lottery teams. Pretty clear no?

no ... not really. You made an invalid inference.

The milwaukee bucks had a better FG than the cavs so of course they were the better team? Of course not.

Cleveland had a higher True Shooting Percentage which is far more important does not ignore point value.

FG values 2's and 3's equally. That is as flawed as you can get.

fishmike wrote:

mreinman wrote:

fishmike wrote:

mreinman wrote:

fishmike wrote:

mreinman wrote:

fishmike wrote:

mreinman wrote:

fishmike wrote:

mreinman wrote:

fishmike wrote:

mreinman wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

mreinman wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

mreinman wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

mreinman wrote:

jrodmc wrote:Unless of course you're shooting the same percentage on 3-10 footers that you are on long 2's. Which we are.

FG% by Distance	FG% by Distance	FG% by Distance
3 -- 10	           10 -- 16	    16 <3
0.376	            0.376	    0.365

Not trying to defend not taking threes, but we don't have alot of terribly efficient threats from out there currently. Yes, that's a knock on Melo

not sure where you are going with this. Are you saying that long 2's are fine since we are shooting them at the same pct as 3-10's?

mreinman wrote:Never a really good excuse to settle for long 2's (though of course some are inevitable).

Are you saying it's better to miss from 3 feet than from 10-23 feet? Help me out.

yes. would you rather attempt and miss a 23 footer or a 21 footer?

Do I get the same amount of points for either miss? Bonn??? where's Bonn???

can't miss em all.

Can we assume x misses from both spots and x hits? Or is it all black and white?

long 2's still count as 2, right? And short 2's still count as 2, right? And we have established that as a team are fairly sucky right now at the 3, right?

So if you're whole team shows an ability to hit a 16 footer just as easily as they hit a 3 footer, can you tell me what the effin difference is? Please? I mean, comparing multi-million dollar pro athletes to what us normal humans can do is cute, but doesn't quite make much sense.

Maintaining that .376 equals .376. In this version of this universe, anyway.

I understand that this whole long 2 issue might be some diabolical plan for Melo to cause us to lose more games, but other than that, I'm not getting it.

we are shooting the 3 at 35.5% as a team. How is that sucky and how the hell is 36 (or even 46)% from anywhere inside the line as goot as 36.5 from outside (efg)?

does EFG% take into account that 75% of all NBA rebounds go to the defense?

3's have a better chanced at being rebounded then long 2's.

so the answer is no then Im assuming? Can you prove this statement?

http://courtvisionanalytics.com/where-do-rebounds-go/

I can tell by his verbage you take this guy as gospel. The greater % of rebounds from 3s vs. long 2s isnt clear at all.

FG% is not an outdated or useless stat, not when 75% of all boards are defensive.

There are a ton of articles written on this topic. Read them and lets revisit (if you'd like). Dismissing years of researching with a backhanded one liner is really not fair to this topic.

Dismissing years of research... all I did was state the obvious. Do scouts have years of research under their belts? You know the ones who use the eye test?

So your take is not if someone doesnt agree with the analytic experts its because they arent informed?

There are many many stats to look at in basketball. Which is more important than FG%

You make blanket statements that arent true, Im asking you back them up. Your response is go read more and come back to me?

You are dismissing things as if they are not being implemented now by pretty much every team.

I am not here to back up everything that you present as fishmike opinions. mreinman thinks that players should only dunk because that is the best shot.

you are arguing things as if it were 10 years ago. Things that are clearly not up for argument anymore.

Follow what is happening in the game. If FG were the most important stat then nobody would be shooting 3's.

Lots of teams shot the 3 ten years ago. There is no need to be angry or fired up.

I follow what is happening to the game. Its why I posted stats from LAST YEAR. Top 10 teams in FG% all playoff teams. Bottom 8 teams in FG% all lottery teams. Pretty clear no?

no ... not really. You made an invalid inference.

The milwaukee bucks had a better FG than the cavs so of course they were the better team? Of course not.

Cleveland had a higher True Shooting Percentage which is far more important does not ignore point value.

FG values 2's and 3's equally. That is as flawed as you can get.

as equally flawed as not factoring in misses when 75% of those go to the other team. FG% isnt a flawed stat at all. Its very clear and very meaningful. It doesnt try to mask its flaws by adding in other factors, it simply makes you look elsewhere for the story if it doesnt add up.

have you googled and read the arguments on this? You seem to just be throwing this out there as if you came up with this theory.

fishmike wrote:

mreinman wrote:

fishmike wrote:

mreinman wrote:also, nobody can argue that the 3 is far more prevalent in the game today vs 10 years ago. Of course that is because every team is now run by stat geeks its hard to take for older school fans but that is part of the game. At some point every fan is going to feel like the game is changing too much for their liking.

thats actually my take with many of your posts. Sports is measured by wins and losses, not by what is visually pleasing, which is why I find it interesting that you call several players who did little besides win (Iverson and Kobe) come to mind and continually call them "disgusting."

Shooting more 3s in not the only "trend" that has happened in the NBA.

The trend I see with the NBA isnt analytic based, its talent based. The trend is how do you tap a very large talent pool of smaller players. Thats the trend. Thats what Mike DAntoni really showed is possible. That it makes more sense to play a 6'7 guy at power forward or center if he's better basketball player than a guy who is 6'10 if you play the right style to maximize his skills...

Everyone likes to play basketball. I am 6'3 and work in NYC. I can walk 20 blocks in rush hour, past 5k people on a given day and see one, maybe two guys who are taller than me. There was a pool of untapped talent. Eliminating hand checking added additional freedom for players who are very fast but perhaps not as tall.

The trend isnt to shoot the 3 more. The trend is smaller faster players. The 3 is the equalizer, but nothing has changed there, only the understanding that these guys have value.

The trend isnt shooting more 3s. Its getting more players that can shoot 3s.

The teams that hit the most shots still win, and that is not hard to see as ALL the top 10 in FG% were playoff teams, and ALL the bottom 8 were lottery bound.

the team that hit the most shots don't necessarily win. Its the team that scores the most points and maximizes the ROI on the shots that they take. Also, count FT's which FG does not.

I never said that 3's and 3 attempts are the only things that changed. I have talked many times about all the other changes to the game.

I don't think that Iverson and Kobe were always disgusting players. Overrated, yes. Disgusting, kobe the last few years has played way passed disgusting.

ahhh... they do, they really do. Top 10 teams all playoff teams, bottom 8 all lottery. I mean pick any year, sort by FG% and its pretty much a top to bottom of what teams had good years and which didnt.

Sure, you can make up for it in other areas... rebounding, hitting 3s, going to the line and TOs are all factors as well, but in a game where you score points by putting the ball in the basket yea... FG% is the key stat.

last season:

FG:

Portland - 17th
Okc - 18th
Houston - 20th
Chicago - 22nd

you really can't use any of these stats by themselves. And, I am sure that nobody is really too heavily on FG. Well ... maybe the lakers.