Introduction:
Ever wonder why certain teams always seem to have good dual percentages (FG% and FT%)? Ever wonder why these teams are predominantly the ones who win your leagues? (Are you one of the people who build these teams?) One of the things fantasy basketball players have picked up over time, is that your shooting percentages are usually the keys to victory. That being said, even experts continue to draft players like Lebron James, Tyson Chandler, Gilbert Arenas, and Baron Davis without apparent penalties to their shooting percentages. How? The key here is proper management.

Fundamental Principle:
The underlying principle behind shooting percentages is that percentages are team-relative, not player-relative. A “good” FG% does not reside with the player, but rather with whichever fantasy team the player is on. Take the following example: Rip Hamilton has a 47% from the field (on 15 attempts). For a late round pick, he is normally believed to give you a very nice boost in FG% since not many guards have that high of a FG% with that high many FGA. However, if your team currently has a combined 49% FG% on 60FGA, Hamilton will HURT your team, and hurt it significantly due to his high FGA. Further, if your team currently has a combined 44% FG% on 200fGA, then Hamilton's contributions would be negligible despite appearing like he would help. The same 44% on 50FGA would make Hamilton's contributions a savior to your team. Basic point: The % is with the team, not with the player. This is why all systematic ranking of players necessarily fail to capture the player's true value. His value is wholly dependent on the situation he's in. A very good thing for one team can very well be a very bad thing for another team. If you don't know which players are good for your team, then you risk ending up with severe shooting percentage inefficiencies.

Diminishing Returns:
First, go back and think on the fundamental principle for a second. Now, before we really dig into this, let's look at some empirical facts. For the 2006-2007 season, the median FG% of competitive fantasy teams is 47%; the median FT% is 77%. This means that those numbers are the easiest to reach if you strive for doing decently in percentages. Supposing that 6 of 12 teams hover around this percentage, 3 teams do poorly and 3 teams do well, you would be best served by hitting slightly higher than 47%, slightly higher than 77%. Throwing in the random factor of H2H luck, and you want to be somewhere between 47%-48% FG, 77%-80% FT.

Setting Your Target In Stages:
Well, we've established what we should shoot for if we want to have an edge over our opponent, but does that mean we actually shoot for those %s? Generally speaking, yes we do. A player like Vince Carter, who has a respectable 45% FG% is bad. A player like Rip Hamilton with 47% is neutral. A player like Gerald Wallace with 50% is good. However, you're severely limiting yourself in your draft if you never dip below those %s. Based upon our Foundational players, we could plan out the rest of our draft based on statistical needs. I'll explain.

Foundational Players:
Since your %s are based and weighed based upon your player's attempts, your Foundational players are those who have the most attempts. It's that simple. If you have 4 players who average 20ish PPG and 8 players who average 10ish PPG, then your 4 high scoring players will make up 50% of your percentage, and your other 8 players the other 50%. The higher your player scores, the more they're weighed. You should know each player's playing styles so you understand where their bulk of PPG comes from (field goals, or free throws). This way, you don't overestimate Nash's 90% FT%'s affect on your team's total FT%. Foundational players are especially important in determining your target %s since they disproportionately affect your team's final %. Thus, Baron Davis hurts your team more than you think he does, especially if your team doesn't score all that much. On the other hand, Steve Nash won't help your team that much, unless your team scores very few points.

Setting Your Foundation:
Your first Foundational Player is necessarily your first round pick, with the exception of Jason Kidd. From here, you will add a second foundational player and then a third with your 2nd and 3rd round picks respectively (exception is Camby). After each pick, mentally re-calculate (or use a calculator if your draft is slow) the approximate shooting % that you're at. This is your foundation.

Finding Your Needs:
At every pick, consult your Foundation. Then, consult your needs. Do you need more 3PTM or steals later on? Well then your FG% will probably lower. Do you need more rebounds or blocks? Then your FT% will probably take a hit. So if you think you need a FG% boost and a rebound boost, picking a rebounder with 48% FG% (while this may raise your FG%) will actually hurt you in the long run, since now your need is no longer in rebounding, an easy place to get high FG% players. Because of these considerations, you should shift your targets up or down for each % after taking into consideration your current Foundation, and your assumed targets of 48% / 80%. With all of this in the back of your mind, you're ready for the moving target.

The Moving Target:
All that we've done before is simply background work. When you're actually making your pick, you have a moving target for both of your %s. The moving target is the synthesis of everything we've talked about so far. As a general rule, if your Foundational %s are high initially, they will drop later on (or they should, due to the diminishing returns); if your %s are low initially, they will naturally rise (but they will probably still suck). Your Foundational % is your current target %. Next, find the average between your current target % and your ideal target % (48/80). This is your new current target %. Finally, based upon what you need, you will then have to adjust your target % either higher or lower accordingly (if you need rebounds, and have a current target % of 45%, it's probably safe to move that up 1-2%). Since all of this changes with each additional pick, your target FG% should be constantly moving. This is the target % you are shooting for with each individual pick, and your new targets are a reflection of reasonable expectations from your team. If this % is dropping below what you want it to be, you should react quickly and make up for your deficiencies.

The Potential Test:
Since you're keeping track of your Foundational %s anyway, before your next pick, you can very easily do a thought experiment and re-calculate your %s with your next potential pick's FGM/FGA and FTM/FTA added in. This will give you an extremely accurate picture of how a particular pick will affect your overall and target %s. For example, Dwight Howard and Ben Wallace will fail this test in almost every single situation... and for very good reason.

Eyeballing Your %s vs Doing Actual Work:
The reason all of this seems so complex, is that eyeballing your %s quite simply doesn't work. Very few people are able to accurately determine the varying weights of each player's FG% or FT% based upon their relative weights for a particular team. They fall into the trap of assuming every player's % are weighed equally, underestimating the effects of a particular player on your %s, or underestimating their team's ability to hand a poor % player in exchange for better hard stats (resulting in inefficiencies). If you don't think you suffer from these errors, you're probably wrong. Eyeballing should only be used as a last resort, and almost any well planned drafter with some multi-tasking skills should be able to keep a consistent calculation going for his/her own team. If you're extremely dedicated (and if your draft is a slow draft), you can even calculate the %s and target % for all your opponents and thus have a better idea of where your targets should be (48% / 80% is a very rough estimate for the norm, which will shift depending on how many GMs choose to ditch each %). In conclusion, do the work if you have the time. The draft is once per season, and the payoff of gaining even one additional % point due to good planning can have huge payoffs. It makes a difference.

Example: Lebron James's FT%
We'll start simple. Lebron James had a bad FT% last year. Assuming that he does not improve this %, it could potentially put your fantasy team in a bad spot from the get go. Knowing the Foundation of Shooting %s, however, we can easily avoid this problem. We start off with 6.3/9.0 = 69%. Average that with target of 80%, and we have a new target of 75%. Since Lebron James gives us just about everything, we have very few needs, so no adjustment there. Our next pick, we are faced with Caron Butler (4.5/5.2: 86%), or Allen Iverson (6.6/8.7: 76%). Going with Caron, we get: 10.8/14.2 = 76%... which pushes our target to 78%. Going with Allen Iverson, we get 12.9/17.7 = 73%... which pushes our target to 76.5%. Caron Butler seems to win out, but by only 2%, instead of the 10% it looks on paper. Let's continue. Let's say for our next pick, we take Carmelo Anthony (7.1/8.7: 81%). Now, the Caron Butler route gives us 17.9/22.9 = 78%, which gives us a target of 79%. The Allen Iverson route gives us 20.0/26.4 = 76%, which gives us 78%. Looking better and better. Now, let's adjust for the fact that we're extremely weak in blocks since Carmelo, Caron, and Iverson all don't contribute in that category. Shot blockers generally have lower FT%, which would mean a smaller movement for a lower Foundation (Iverson) as opposed to a higher foundation (Caron). Thus, we can almost say that Caron Butler and Allen Iverson helps us in FT% equally. In fact, if we kept going for a mere 1 – 2 more picks, the difference between Caron Butler and Iverson's FT% would become absolutely negligible. (If you want, extrapolate the example with an additional Emeka Okafor pick and a Tony Parker pick. You'll see what I mean).

Analyzing Our Lebron James Results:
So here, we've proved two points. First, Caron Butler's FT% is not all that great for a FT% conscious Lebron James team, mostly because Iverson's extra 3.5 attempts per game does make a huge huge difference. Also, if our original FT% target was above 76%, having Iverson's FT% would hurt us more, whereas Butler's would still help us. So, Iverson fits with Lebron, Caron Butler less so. A second, but equally important point, is that Lebron James team ended up with a very respectable 78% or 79% FT% after only 3 picks either way! Since this is the usual average for a fantasy team, we're not doing bad at all, and we have 10 more picks to shift that % whichever way, so the % can be seen as fairly representative. Lebron James does not necessitate ditching Ft% (in comparison, if you ran the same thought experiment with Dwight Howard, you would come to the opposite conclusion). I hope this example illuminated the benefits of considering the Foundations of shooting % when you draft. Percentages, more than any other statistic, are team-oriented, and where one player may be better for one particular team, another player would be better for yours. This is why in fantasy basketball, there exists something called a “win-win trade”, where both teams can benefit from the trade (thus, relatively, the entire rest of the league suffers). The same principle exists in drafting, only here, you're not constrained by the consent of the other GMs, your team is as cohesive and efficient as you make it. Good luck!

Caveat on Points:
A special strategy that is a favorite of mine is ditching points. When you ditch points, your overall lower FGA/FTA (by up to 40% if you plan this well) will allow you to have great control over your %s. Taking a player like Rip Hamilton in the later rounds will pay huge dividends with his 86% FT% on 5FTA. Similarly, Caron Butler now becomes much more useful than in the Lebron James situation and his high FT% will help your team throughout. Finally, players who would normally only help minimally like Steve Nash also gain considerable value. On the flip-side, there must be a concentrated effort to not draft any player with a significantly horrible %, even later on in the draft since you will not have enough bulk to cover his fault (this is particularly true of the low FT% shooters that hover in the 10+ rounds). If planned well, this build gives the most control over your %s, which makes for a very nice hidden bonus. When you don't have to worry about points, you can have a disproportionate focus on %s, especially in the mid draft area (picks 70-110).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Haiwei is a new column writer for RotoFreak.com. If you'd like to comment on the article, please chime in on the boards.