NBA.com Revamped Stats Engine..TS% replacing FG%?

[eliteballer]

http://stats.nba.com/?ls=nbacom&GameScope=Season&PlayerOrTeam=Player&StatCategory=Points

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

http://stats.nba.com/playerStats.html?PlayerID=2544

:confusedshrug:

[chazzy]

But but it's a BS stat

[jstern]

I clicked on the players icon and it says that Kobe is 6'7"

http://stats.nba.com/playerProfile.html?PlayerID=977

[Glide2keva]

But but it's a BS stat
It is. BS stat for BSPN

[tmacattack33]

But but it's a BS stat

Please explain. I don't see any draw backs of using TS% (beyond the fact that we as fans would have to do some math if we wanted to know someones TS% for a game or season and it wasn't listed at the source we are looking at).

It IS a better stat than field goal percentage. That's not an opinion. It is a greater encompassing stat than field goal percentage and it is better.

[chazzy]

Please explain. I don't see any draw backs of using TS% (beyond the fact that we as fans would have to do some math if we wanted to know someones TS% for a game or season and it wasn't listed at the source we are looking at).

It IS a better stat than field goal percentage. That's not an opinion. It is a greater encompassing stat than field goal percentage and it is better.
Sarcasm

[Odinn]

It IS a better stat than field goal percentage. That's not an opinion. It is a greater encompassing stat than field goal percentage and it is better.
Let's see. There is a multiplier. 0.44. To adjust free throws. The people which defends that BS said to me it's an adjustment for and-ones and technical free throws.

Wouldn't that 0.44 multiplier be changed in every season? Even after every week? Care to explain?

There should be a multiplier which is particular to every single season.

[chazzy]

Let's see. There is a multiplier. 0.44. To adjust free throws. The people which defends that BS said to me it's an adjustment for and-ones and technical free throws.

Wouldn't that 0.44 multiplier be changed in every season? Even after every week? Care to explain?

There should be a multiplier which is particular to every single season.
If you change it to .50 it's a marginal difference anyway

[Vragrant]

Kobe fans are ecstatic right now:oldlol:

[Hoiids]

Kobe fans are ecstatic right now:oldlol:

And KD fans

[Jacks3]

People who realize how completely useless FG% is are ecstatic right now.

[tmacattack33]

Let's see. There is a multiplier. 0.44. To adjust free throws. The people which defends that BS said to me it's an adjustment for and-ones and technical free throws.

Wouldn't that 0.44 multiplier be changed in every season? Even after every week? Care to explain?

There should be a multiplier which is particular to every single season.

Well field goal percentage doesn't take that variance into consideration either...it just doesn't even look at the free throws, which is obviously worse than the difference between .44 and .47 or whatever you think it should be.

[eliteballer]

It is. BS stat for BSPN

It's not a BS stat, not like PER...if you understood simple math you'd know that:roll:

[andremiller07]

People who realize how completely useless FG% is are ecstatic right now.

Its easily the most overrated stat in the NBA, I don't know if TS is any better, the reailty is how much impact a player has on a game is far greater than any stat.

[chazzy]

Kobe fans are ecstatic right now:oldlol:
Why? Kobe doesn't have a truly elite TS%

[tmacattack33]

Its easily the most overrated stat in the NBA, I don't know if TS is any better, the reailty is how much impact a player has on a game is far greater than any stat.


Well yeah, but you need some way to concretely try to measure things, and that is why stats exist.

And you need to able to measure someone's performance in a game that you didn't see. No person watches every game of every player each year.

And even if they did, their memory wouldn't be good enough to reliably evaluate everybody. You need some way to quickly summarize everything.

[andremiller07]

Well yeah, but you need some way to concretely try to measure things, and that is why stats exist.

And you need to able to measure someone's performance in a game that you didn't see. No person watches every game of every player each year.

And even if they did, their memory wouldn't be good enough to reliably evaluate everybody. You need some way to quickly summarize everything.

I agree but the problem is to often people use purely statistics to compare players which is just dumb without taking into account various other factors or even ever watching that player.

[Vragrant]

Why? Kobe doesn't have a truly elite TS%

He does not, but TS% makes him look markedly better. I'm not saying Kobe is woefully inefficient but I've seen many Kobe fans over the years say FG% is "useless" and cite his TS% numbers.

[Graviton]

Points Per Possession or eFG% are more accurate when it comes to showing efficiency, nowadays anything below 50% FG is terrible for some reason. Though the difference between 45% and 50% is basically 1 extra shot going in every game, and most games aren't decided by just one posession.

The smaller you are, the lower your FG% will be. But if you are a slasher and get to the free throw line and make up for it, then your eFG% will still be over 50%.

Would you rather have a guy shooting 50% on 20 shots for 22 points, or a guy shooting 45% on 20 shots but with 26 points. Points Per Possesion take into account everything and show you real efficiency. It's when you have more shots taken than points scored that you are hurting the team.

[Sarcastic]

I like eFG% better than TS.


I don't see why a guy's free throw percentage should be calculated with how he shoots during live action.

[DMV2]

They're just making it more fancy for stat whore to drool over with.

They wouldn't replace FG% because it's one of the key secondary stats.
Main 3/5: Points, Rebounds, Assists / Steals and Blocks
Secondary: FG%, 3-PT%, FT%
Misc.: GP, Mins, Turnovers

TS% is basically "Advance Stats."

[chazzy]

It's cool that NBA.com is embracing advanced stats, listing TS% on the front page of their stats site is pretty big. I remember everyone would keep dismissing it by saying "HOW COME I DON'T SEE TS% ANYWHERE ON NBA.COM?" :oldlol:

[NumberSix]

They should just use a points-per-attempt stat. You would have to count shots where a foul occurs as an attempt, but it truly would be the most accurate shooting statistic.

[RobertdeMeijer]

They should just use a points-per-attempt stat. You would have to count shots where a foul occurs as an attempt, but it truly would be the most accurate shooting statistic.

I believe that if you multiply TS% by 2, you would get that.

[Jax]

PER never lies for a minimum of at least 100 minutes...

[Inactive]

Let's see. There is a multiplier. 0.44. To adjust free throws. The people which defends that BS said to me it's an adjustment for and-ones and technical free throws.

Wouldn't that 0.44 multiplier be changed in every season? Even after every week? Care to explain?

There should be a multiplier which is particular to every single season.And-1s, 3pa fts, technical fts, etc. aren't recorded in the box score, so you have to estimate. This isn't a problem with TS%, it's a problem with any scoring efficiency stat; they all use the .44 multiplier. If you want a greater degree of precision, find the stats yourself, and adjust the formula. You'll have to update it every game, for every player.


Points Per Possession or eFG% are more accurate when it comes to showing efficiencyIn what way are they more accurate? PPP is just TS% with OREB, and TO taken into account. EFG% is just TS% without FTs.


The smaller you are, the lower your FG% will be. But if you are a slasher and get to the free throw line and make up for it, then your eFG% will still be over 50%. FTAs don't have any impact on your eFG%.

[Glide2keva]

Well field goal percentage doesn't take that variance into consideration either...it just doesn't even look at the free throws, which is obviously worse than the difference between .44 and .47 or whatever you think it should be.
Because FT% has it's own stat. As it should be. TS% is stupid.

[Doranku]

Anyone else look at any of the other stats?

Melo is by far first in usage%, and averages a pitiful 2.7 assists. :roll:

[Euroleague]

They should just use a points-per-attempt stat. You would have to count shots where a foul occurs as an attempt, but it truly would be the most accurate shooting statistic.

No. Because it inflates the importance of players the refs help.

[Euroleague]

PER never lies for a minimum of at least 100 minutes...

Yes it does. First, it does not rate defense. Secondly, the time you play per minute dictates the stat too much. Either inflating or deflating it too much.

[DatAsh]

They should just use a points-per-attempt stat. You would have to count shots where a foul occurs as an attempt, but it truly would be the most accurate shooting statistic.

Like all methods though, it would still have its flaws. Guys like Kobe, Wade, and Durant are very good at making post foul shot attempts - that they wouldn't have made otherwise -to get to the line. They may not be a flaw depending on how you view things, but it's at the very least an edge case.

[chazzy]

I also like how they list individual defensive rating along with blocks for the Defense tab. It's not perfect, but it generally gives you an idea of how much they're impacting their team's defense while they're on the court.

[pauk]

First of all, i hate this new stats page and these new stats, to confusing, to much, to unnecessary stuff... just keep it simple and keep the most important stats there, we have basketball-reference for everything else...

...and to replace the FG% for TS% on the scoring column is horrible, i seriously didnt expect that stupidity from NBA.com but i was wrong...

TS% is the most flawed and most incorrect way to look into a players shooting..... because it takes into account non Field Goals (Freethrows), which hence can even make a 40% FG scorer lead the league in TS% if his Freethrow accuracy is super high......... and it can also make a 70% FG scorer be waaaaaaaay down on TS% if his FT% accuracy is very low........

Shaq scores 30 ppg on 60% FG.... TS% 50
Reggie scores 20 ppg on 50% FG... TS% 60+

Reggie > Shaq

[chazzy]

First of all, i hate this new stats page and these new stats, to confusing, to much, to unnecessary stuff... just keep it simple and keep the most important stats there, we have basketball-reference for everything else...

...and to replace the FG% for TS% on the scoring column is horrible, i seriously didnt expect that stupidity from NBA.com but i was wrong...

TS% is the most flawed and most incorrect way to look into a players shooting..... because it takes into account non Field Goals (Freethrows), which hence can even make a 40% FG scorer lead the league in TS% if his Freethrow accuracy is super high......... and it can also make a 70% FG scorer be waaaaaaaay down on TS% if his FT% accuracy is very low........
It's only because Durant is higher :lol FT accuracy and volume matters in scoring whether you like it or not. If Dwight is 7/10 from the field but 2/9 from the line, his TS% would reflect his overall efficiency.

[pauk]

It's only because Durant is higher :lol FT accuracy and volume matters in scoring whether you like it or not. If Dwight is 7/10 from the field but 2/9 from the line, his TS% would reflect his overall efficiency.

A super efficient live ball player (field goals, which means 2pt & 3pt) should not have his actual super efficient percentage downplayed & replaced by a new made up stat which favors high percentage FT shooters...

A super sucky live ball player (field goals, which means 2pt & 3pt) should not have his actual sucky percentage increased & replaced by a new made up stat which favors high percentage FT shooters...

Thats my point...

You said with your own words that it reflects a players overall efficiency? Does it now!? Thats actually exactly what it destroys!!

Lets say two players in a game both shoot 20 FGA and 10 FTA....

Player A shot 9 of 20 from the floor (45% FG) and shot 9 of 10 from the FT line, thats 27 pts... his team losed 91-93
Player B shot 11 of 20 from the floor (55% FG) and shot 7 of 10 from the FT line, thats 30 pts... his team won 93-91

Who do you think had a better overall efficiency? Isnt it obvious? Looks like its Player B right? He got extra 3 points because he shot higher FG% at the same exact FGA and despite hitting less FTs than Player A........ but nope, TS% says otherwise here....

Understand now how stupid TS% is?

[Inactive]

Lets say two players in a game both shoot 20 FGA and 10 FTA....

Player A shot 9 of 20 from the floor (45% FG) and shot 9 of 10 from the FT line, thats 27 pts... his team losed 91-93
Player B shot 11 of 20 from the floor (55% FG) and shot 7 of 10 from the FT line, thats 30 pts... his team won 93-91

Who do you think had a better overall efficiency? Isnt it obvious? Looks like its Player B right? He got extra 3 points because he shot higher FG% at the same exact FGA and despite hitting less FTs than Player A........ but nope, TS% says otherwise here....

Understand now how stupid TS% is??

Player A had a .553 TS%, and Player B had .615.

[guy]

A super efficient live ball player (field goals, which means 2pt & 3pt) should not have his actual super efficient percentage downplayed & replaced by a new made up stat which favors high percentage FT shooters...

A super sucky live ball player (field goals, which means 2pt & 3pt) should not have his actual sucky percentage increased & replaced by a new made up stat which favors high percentage FT shooters...

Thats my point...

You said with your own words that it reflects a players overall efficiency? Does it now!? Thats actually exactly what it destroys!!

Lets say two players in a game both shoot 20 FGA and 10 FTA....

Player A shot 9 of 20 from the floor (45% FG) and shot 9 of 10 from the FT line, thats 27 pts... his team losed 91-93
Player B shot 11 of 20 from the floor (55% FG) and shot 7 of 10 from the FT line, thats 30 pts... his team won 93-91

Who do you think had a better overall efficiency? Isnt it obvious? Looks like its Player B right? He got extra 3 points because he shot higher FG% at the same exact FGA and despite hitting less FTs than Player A........ but nope, TS% says otherwise here....

Understand now how stupid TS% is?

Ummm, I don't think you know what you're talking about. Player B in your example would have the higher TS%. Player B would have a 59 TS% while player A would have a 55 TS%.

Either way, TS% is still a misleading stat. You can't equate more misses with less misses even if the same amount of points are scored on the same number of attempts because more misses gives the other team more transition opportunities and easier shot attempts as a result. TS% basically says that player A going 10/30 is equal to player B going 15/30 if player A only made 3 pointers and player B only made 2 pointers. It ignores that those 5 extra missed shots probably resulted in easier attempts, ignoring the almost certainty that the other team probably scored more on the other end after player A shot attempts then they did after player B shot attempts.

[chazzy]

Ummm, I don't think you know what you're talking about. Player B in your example would have the higher TS%. Player B would have a 59 TS% while player A would have a 55 TS%.

Either way, TS% is still a misleading stat. You can't equate more misses with less misses even if the same amount of points are scored on the same number of attempts because more misses gives the other team more transition opportunities and easier shot attempts as a result. TS% basically says that player A going 10/30 is equal to player B going 15/30 if player A only made 3 pointers and player B only made 2 pointers. It ignores that those 5 extra missed shots probably resulted in easier attempts, ignoring the almost certainty that the other team probably scored more on the other end after player A shot attempts then they did after player B shot attempts.
True. It's fine strictly looking at it as a scoring efficiency stat, but further analysis needs to be made to make any conclusions beyond that. Either way, it's still a lot better than limiting yourself to FG%

[Inactive]

Either way, TS% is still a misleading stat. You can't equate more misses with less misses even if the same amount of points are scored on the same number of attempts because more misses gives the other team more transition opportunities and easier shot attempts as a result.There's nothing misleading about that. TS% doesn't purport to tell you how likely an opponent is to score after a miss. It tells you how efficiently you scored.

[tmacattack33]

Ummm, I don't think you know what you're talking about. Player B in your example would have the higher TS%. Player B would have a 59 TS% while player A would have a 55 TS%.

Either way, TS% is still a misleading stat. You can't equate more misses with less misses even if the same amount of points are scored on the same number of attempts because more misses gives the other team more transition opportunities and easier shot attempts as a result. TS% basically says that player A going 10/30 is equal to player B going 15/30 if player A only made 3 pointers and player B only made 2 pointers. It ignores that those 5 extra missed shots probably resulted in easier attempts, ignoring the almost certainty that the other team probably scored more on the other end after player A shot attempts then they did after player B shot attempts.

Yeah but in those five extra misses from Player A (the three point gun slinger), his team has a chance to get an offensive rebound. I don't think you took that into consideration and that pretty much evens everything out.


Anyway, that is a very indirect way to look at TS%. As said above, a shooting efficiency stat's job isn't to tell you about rebound chances or anything like that.

And I can make an indirect claim to counter your indirect claim. A three point gun slinger gives his team more offensive spacing, so he should indeed be look upon more highly. Now that is pretty indirect, but so was your claim.

[guy]

True. It's fine strictly looking at it as a scoring efficiency stat, but further analysis needs to be made to make any conclusions beyond that. Either way, it's still a lot better than limiting yourself to FG%

I guess you can say that when you're looking at strictly scoring efficiency, but I still don't think its better then FG% when looking at the broader view. FG% is a better stat that tells you if players are taking better shots, disregarding how much their worth, but as a result it tells you how much easier or harder they make it for the other team like I said. Obviously none of them are perfect on their own, but I'd rather just go with FG%, 3P%, FT% together so we aren't ignoring these things.

[guy]

Yeah but in those five extra misses from Player A (the three point gun slinger), his team has a chance to get an offensive rebound. I don't think you took that into consideration and that pretty much evens everything out.


Anyway, that is a very indirect way to look at TS%. As said above, a shooting efficiency stat's job isn't to tell you about rebound chances or anything like that.

And I can make an indirect claim to counter your indirect claim. A three point gun slinger gives his team more offensive spacing, so he should indeed be look upon more highly. Now that is pretty indirect, but so was your claim.

We obviously know that offensive rebounds aren't even close to as likely as defensive rebounds, so no it doesn't even everything out. ORB are literally about 25% of all rebounds.

As a shooting efficiency stat, I guess its not bad. But when looking at OVERALL efficiency of a player, it completely ignores that aspect.

[che guevara]

The argument that FTs shouldn't count because it doesn't occur during live action is just downright retarded. I don't know if you guys know this, but you get FTs BECAUSE OF WHAT YOU DID DURING LIVE ACTION.

TS% has a much higher correlation with winning than FG%, it's just a superior stat if you're trying to measure scoring efficiency.

[NumberSix]

The argument that FTs shouldn't count because it doesn't occur during live action is just downright retarded. I don't know if you guys know this, but you get FTs BECAUSE OF WHAT YOU DID DURING LIVE ACTION.

TS% has a much higher correlation with winning than FG%, it's just a superior stat if you're trying to measure scoring efficiency.
But we already have a stat for free throws. If the box say a player was 8/10 on free throws, there's noting to figure out. I know he had exactly 10 free throws and he made 80% of them. Blending things together is just a way of giving LESS information.

IMO, 3 pointers shouldnt even be counted in FG%. It should be it's own stat. More information and more context is ALWAYS better.

[2010splash]

TS% is used by Durant-worshiping sheep who try to overrate him. They claim it measures true efficiency of a player because it accounts for threes and things like that, but it overrates players who shoot too many free throws. Anyone can have a ridiculous TS% if they draw fouls when when they get breathed on out on the perimeter.

FG% > TS%

[tmacattack33]

TS% is used by Durant-worshiping sheep who try to overrate him. They claim it measures true efficiency of a player because it accounts for threes and things like that, but it overrates players who shoot too many free throws. Anyone can have a ridiculous TS% if they draw fouls when when they get breathed on out on the perimeter.

FG% > TS%

If a player knows how to get to the foul line, good for him.

If you are upset because you think the refs unfairly call falls on Durant's defenders, then your issue is with the refs and not the TS% stat.

[tmacattack33]

We obviously know that offensive rebounds aren't even close to as likely as defensive rebounds, so no it doesn't even everything out. ORB are literally about 25% of all rebounds.

As a shooting efficiency stat, I guess its not bad. But when looking at OVERALL efficiency of a player, it completely ignores that aspect.

And we also know that not every defensive rebound leads to a fast-break on the other end. And the amount that do is probably less than 25%.

[DMAVS41]

What Chazzy is saying is accurate, but the reason I will always like the raw numbers is simply because I want to know about makes and misses.

Missed shots kill...at every level. There is something to missing less shots. Missed free throws hurt as well, but not as much...and this is why we should simply look at everything.

I think a good rundown on a player would list it all.

fg/3p/ft/ts

[NumberSix]

What Chazzy is saying is accurate, but the reason I will always like the raw numbers is simply because I want to know about makes and misses.

Missed shots kill...at every level. There is something to missing less shots. Missed free throws hurt as well, but not as much...and this is why we should simply look at everything.

I think a good rundown on a player would list it all.

fg/3p/ft/ts
Exactly.

More information > Less information.

[tmacattack33]

What Chazzy is saying is accurate, but the reason I will always like the raw numbers is simply because I want to know about makes and misses.

Missed shots kill...at every level. There is something to missing less shots. Missed free throws hurt as well, but not as much...and this is why we should simply look at everything.

I think a good rundown on a player would list it all.

fg/3p/ft/ts

Definitely...I mean looking at all three would obviously give you more information.

But i think some ppl in here are seriously trying to argue that FG% alone is better than TS%...which is hysterical and is just wrong.

[DMAVS41]

Definitely...I mean looking at all three would obviously give you more information.

But i think some ppl in here are seriously trying to argue that FG% alone is better than TS%...which is hysterical and is just wrong.

I don't think they are saying that. Seems to me they would be arguing that ft percentage shouldn't be included with how efficient a player is making shots in games. Which I can see how that makes sense.

[NumberSix]

Definitely...I mean looking at all three would obviously give you more information.

But i think some ppl in here are seriously trying to argue that FG% alone is better than TS%...which is hysterical and is just wrong.
Nobody thinks FG% alone is better. That gives you literally 0 information about free throws.

FG% in conjunction with FT% and 3pt% is clearly superior to TS%.

TS% isn't even a stat. It's a metric. That belongs in a different category than the stats.

[no pun intended]

I clicked on the players icon and it says that Kobe is 6'7"

http://stats.nba.com/playerProfile.html?PlayerID=977
And 220 lbs :roll:

[Jax]

Kobe is indeed 6'7 and 220. What's wrong? :biggums:

[guy]

And we also know that not every defensive rebound leads to a fast-break on the other end. And the amount that do is probably less than 25%.

They aren't necessarily fast breaks, but easier opportunities just cause the defense doesn't have as much time to set themselves.