The Flaws of TS%

[Haks]

What are the flaws of TS%

[OldSchoolBBall]

It doesn't tell you how reliable a scorer someone is down the stretch of games. Not because it doesn't factor in "clutchness" or anything like that, but because refs are not as likely to blow the whistle in the 4th quarter as they are in the first 3 quarters.

If you have two dominant scorers (>25 ppg) and one has a 54% FG/57% TS and the other has a 46% FG/57% TS, I am taking the first player every single time in the 4th quarter. Every time. He's simply more likely to actually MAKE BASKETS, which is what is needed down the stretch of games.

[SHAQisGOAT]

Dudes that live at the line (those that get too much star treatment, so soft-era gets the benefit) and shot-jackers from 3pt land get too much "credit".

[TheMarkMadsen]

It doesn't tell you how reliable a scorer someone is down the stretch of games. Not because it doesn't factor in "clutchness" or anything like that, but because refs are not as likely to blow the whistle in the 4th quarter as they are in the first 3 quarters.

If you have two dominant scorers (>25 ppg) and one has a 54% FG/57% TS and the other has a 46% FG/57% TS, I am taking the first player every single time in the 4th quarter. Every time. He's simply more likely to actually MAKE BASKETS, which is what is needed down the stretch of games.

The guy shooting 54% FT and 57% TS is probably not the best FT shooter in the world..

and with your logic you'd prolly want the guy who can hit FT's down the stretch.

the guy shooting 46% on 57% TS is prolly pretty damn good at shooting FT.

I'll take that guy down the stretch

[DMAVS41]

It doesn't tell you how reliable a scorer someone is down the stretch of games. Not because it doesn't factor in "clutchness" or anything like that, but because refs are not as likely to blow the whistle in the 4th quarter as they are in the first 3 quarters.

If you have two dominant scorers (>25 ppg) and one has a 54% FG/57% TS and the other has a 46% FG/57% TS, I am taking the first player every single time in the 4th quarter. Every time. He's simply more likely to actually MAKE BASKETS, which is what is needed down the stretch of games.

Not true at all though.

The first guy could be Karl Malone or Blake Griffin and the 2nd guy could be Kobe or Dirk. Both Kobe and Dirk are far more likely to actually make baskets down the stretch of close games.

In your example above...you would just look at the TS% for the players in question in clutch situations...etc.

As for the flaw of TS...not really a flaw, but fg% itself is very important in my opinion. Missing shots hurt you...and guys that live at the line or take a ton of 3's can sometimes, not always, benefit from TS% rather than the raw percentages themselves. But TS% is not supposed to tell you anything other than what it sets out to do...so I don't even know if it's a flaw. It's not a guide to which player is better.

[iamgine]

There really is no flaw if you take it within the right context. Really no stat is flawed. It's usually the person claiming what the stat does that is flawed.

[j3lademaster]

A guy who straight up makes a layup has a better ts% than a guy who makes a layup while drawing a foul followed by a missed free throw. At the end it's all 2 points.

[moe94]

Freethrow warriors have their value inflated.

[tpols]

It doesn't tell you how reliable a scorer someone is down the stretch of games. Not because it doesn't factor in "clutchness" or anything like that, but because refs are not as likely to blow the whistle in the 4th quarter as they are in the first 3 quarters.

If you have two dominant scorers (>25 ppg) and one has a 54% FG/57% TS and the other has a 46% FG/57% TS, I am taking the first player every single time in the 4th quarter. Every time. He's simply more likely to actually MAKE BASKETS, which is what is needed down the stretch of games.
This isnt really true at all.. Someone like Dirk.. who is a career 47% shooter from the field, is one of the most clutch players in the past twenty or so years. Way more clutch than, for example, Shaq.. who shot like 15% higher from the field.

Lebron is shooting like 60% or whatever right now but I wouldnt take him in the clutch over joe johnson who shoot 10+% lower.


It depends if you score in the flow of the game aka opportunistic buckets or if youre imposing your will at critical junctions aka dominant scoring. You can be an opportunistic scorer like Brook Lopez who will shoot great FG but if you NEED a bucket from him hes less likely to get you it than a guy who may be shooting way lower from the field. You cant just look at FG and decide.


Wade is a 4+% better FG than Kobe for their careers yet Kobe blows Wade away in crunchtime stats... what youre saying has no bearing on 'clutch'.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Dudes that live at the line (those that get too much star treatment, so soft-era gets the benefit) and shot-jackers from 3pt land get too much "credit".

Part of the reason I think Durant's TS% is a bit inflated. Free throws are important, no doubt - but they're not shot attempts from the field (where actual defense is being played).

[moe94]

Wade is a 4+% better FG than Kobe for their careers yet Kobe blows Wade away in crunchtime stats... what youre saying has no bearing on 'clutch'.

http://awesomelyluvvie.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/receipts.gif

Also, you are heavily implying that Joe Johnson is a more dominant scorer than LeBron. I guess Joe just doesn't try most of the game. :confusedshrug:

[PJR]

TS% is useful with proper context applied. But I will say this, I don't care what anyone says, the closer you are to making half your shots from the field, the better it is for you team. And every professional basketball coach will agree with that. TS% at times tells you otherwise.

There's a reason why dominant centers are considered the most impactful players in basketball(because they operate close to the basket, and are consistently converting half or more of their attempts from the field). Despite the fact that most suck at shooting free throws, and don't shoot threes.

[tpols]

http://awesomelyluvvie.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/receipts.gif

Also, you are heavily implying that Joe Johnson is a more dominant scorer than LeBron. I guess Joe just doesn't try most of the game. :confusedshrug:
no... just that you cant stare at FG and say one player is better in the clutch because of it.


Midrange and shooting=clutch.. Driving the ball to the rim is unreliable in crunctime because defenses are set wating for it, and there's less likely to be a foul called on the drive. Which is why Bron and Wade have struggled at times in the clutch.. because they rely on driving to score and it isnt as good an option down the stretch.


Where as Bird/MJ/Dirk etc shit even reggie miller all the guys that are seen as prototypical clutch are that way because they are flat out dominant shooters that can get it off from anywhere.

[SHAQisGOAT]

Part of the reason I think Durant's TS% is a bit inflated. Free throws are important, no doubt - but they're not shot attempts from the field (where actual defense is being played).

Yes, true, I wouldn't even say just a bit.

[GrapeApe]

I personally prefer efg% because it's a live ball shooting stat and there's no subjectivity involved.

[gts]

There really is no flaw if you take it within the right context. Really no stat is flawed. It's usually the person claiming what the stat does that is flawed.

This.. I'll add you can't take it at face value, you have to investigate why it is what it is then give it's proper value within the context you're using it for

[gts]

Part of the reason I think Durant's TS% is a bit inflated. Free throws are important, no doubt - but they're not shot attempts from the field (where actual defense is being played).

But does that matter in the grand scheme of things? the object is to score points who cares how they are garnered if you're winning.

[moe94]

PER is awful
FG% is bad
APG is bad
PPG is misleading
TS% is now bad

Stats dropping like flies. From now on, we judge players purely by how aesthetic their game looks and how much killer instinct they have.

[Micku]

Dudes that live at the line (those that get too much star treatment, so soft-era gets the benefit) and shot-jackers from 3pt land get too much "credit".

This maybe. But that's what it's suppose to do. FTs and 3pt shot being taken into account.

But TS% isn't flawed if you use in the right context.

One thing that TS% doesn't really tell you is how a player does when the defense is live. I remember Durant shot like 3/9, 1 three and was 12/13 from the FT. So, he had 33% FG but a 64.5% TS with 19 points. His eFG was 38.9%

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/201311240OKC.html

There are other examples as well, but TS% isn't wrong or flawed in this. He got his points and was an efficient scorer from the amount of shots that he took due to his ability to make FTs and hit a 3. But the FTs aren't shot attempts from the field.

Granted, you could argue that he played well enough that the defense had to foul him.

[Young X]

The only flaw is the .44 multiplier which tries to take and 1's/technical FT's into account, other than that there are no flaws.

Don't understand why people are criticizing FT's when it's the most efficient way to score. Getting to the line is a GOOD thing.

TS% = points per scoring possession.

The team with more points per possession (TS%/TO/off rebs) always wins.

If 2 teams have equal turnovers and offensive rebounds the team with the higher TS% always wins.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

But does that matter in the grand scheme of things? the object is to score points who cares how they are garnered if you're winning.

No, you're right. It's just funny reading posts that say "x has a better TS% therefor the better scorer!!" Absolute rubbish. :oldlol:

[moe94]

No, you're right. It's just funny reading posts that say "x has a better TS% therefor he is the better scorer!!" Absolute rubbish. :oldlol:

Using your own example, are you actually implying, in any way, that Durant isn't the premier scoring threat in the NBA?

[ImKobe]

TS% favors wing players while it takes away from the bigs.

For instance, Tim Duncan shoots 50,6% from the field for his career while James Harden shoots 44,3%, but Tim's TS% is 55,1 compared to Harden's 60,3%TS. Harden's TS% is inflated due to 3pt shooting and free throws. In reality, Duncan is the more efficient player, as he takes better shots.

DeAndre Jordan leads the league in FG% with a whopping 64,6% FG, but his TS% is same as Harden's this season as he's a horrible FT shooter.

[tmacattack33]

It doesn't tell you how reliable a scorer someone is down the stretch of games. Not because it doesn't factor in "clutchness" or anything like that, but because refs are not as likely to blow the whistle in the 4th quarter as they are in the first 3 quarters.

If you have two dominant scorers (>25 ppg) and one has a 54% FG/57% TS and the other has a 46% FG/57% TS, I am taking the first player every single time in the 4th quarter. Every time. He's simply more likely to actually MAKE BASKETS, which is what is needed down the stretch of games.

Well at the same time, this high free throw shooting player (let's call him "Kevin Durant"...:oldlol: ) is able to draw so many fouls that he gets the opposing team in the penalty throughout the game and this can also lead to a specific player on the other team being in foul trouble or fouled out.

I think that can even it out what you just said.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Using your own example, are you actually implying, in any way, that Durant isn't the premier scoring threat in the NBA?

He's the best scorer today, but I never really thought TS% had/has anything to do with it.

[Young X]

Team A: 42/80 from the field, 2/9 from 3, 15/30 from the line.
Team B: 38/80 from the field, 6/9 from 3, 25/30 from the line.

Team A had a higher FG%, Team B had a higher TS%.

Assuming both teams have the same turnover and rebound rate. Which team will win?

[TheMarkMadsen]

Team A: 42/80 from the field, 2/9 from 3, 15/30 from the line.
Team B: 38/80 from the field, 6/9 from 3, 25/30 from the line.

Team A had a higher FG%, Team B had a higher TS%.

Assuming both teams have the same turnover and rebound rate. Which team will win?


Well considering team B made 10 more free throws & 4 more 3's ill say that makes up for the 4 less shots made.

:confusedshrug:

Looks like team b going for that W

[Young X]

Well considering team B made 10 more free throws & 4 more 3's ill say that makes up for the 4 less shots made.

:confusedshrug:

Looks like team b going for that WExactly, which is why just looking at FG% is useless as it can be replaced by better FT and 3 pt shooting which reflects in TS%. A team with 40% shooting can beat a team with 60% shooting, a player with 45% shooting can still be more efficient than a player with 55% shooting.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Team A: 42/80 from the field, 2/9 from 3, 15/30 from the line.
Team B: 38/80 from the field, 6/9 from 3, 25/30 from the line.

Team A had a higher FG%, Team B had a higher TS%.

Assuming both teams have the same turnover and rebound rate. Which team will win?

Team B got to the line [more] and shot [more] threes. I don't need TS% to tell me that. :confusedshrug:

[OldSchoolBBall]

This isnt really true at all.. Someone like Dirk.. who is a career 47% shooter from the field, is one of the most clutch players in the past twenty or so years. Way more clutch than, for example, Shaq.. who shot like 15% higher from the field.

I'm talking about two players with the numbers I posted who have equal "clutchness."

The person who said they'd take the guy who can make FT's better is missing the point: in many games, especially the postseason, you're not going to GET the calls in the 4th.

[ballup]

I never got an explanation for its model. In the end, it's a model. Not a definition of character.

[fpliii]

1) The .44 isn't constant from year-to-year (or from player-to-player, though this is much harder to adjust for). It's not a huge deal, but when people are comparing players on the basis of one or two percentage points, it matters.

2) The 3-to-make-2 and 2-to-make-1 FT shooting rules caused more attempts in a given trip at times. This affects TS% for players from 54-55 through 80-81, particularly for guys who shot a lot of FTs, and we're particularly bad at the line.

3) Most importantly, people will cite TS% without the number of attempts (TSA, or true shooting attempts, FGA+.44*FTA, or whatever coefficient you decide on). It's necessary for context.

By far the best scoring efficiency metric we have, though, as long as you take these three factors into account and adjust accordingly.

[LAZERUSS]

1) The .44 isn't constant from year-to-year (or from player-to-player, though this is much harder to adjust for). It's not a huge deal, but when people are comparing players on the basis of one or two percentage points, it matters.

2) The 3-to-make-2 and 2-to-make-1 FT shooting rules caused more attempts in a given trip at times. This affects TS% for players from 54-55 through 80-81, particularly for guys who shot a lot of FTs, and we're particularly bad at the line.

3) Most importantly, people will cite TS% without the number of attempts (TSA, or true shooting attempts, FGA+.44*FTA, or whatever coefficient you decide on). It's necessary for context.

By far the best scoring efficiency metric we have, though, as long as you take these three factors into account and adjust accordingly.

Great post, but I would like to add my two cents, as well.

I have read posters comparing players TS%'s in the 60's, with those of the 80's, and even 00's. Which is just plain ridiculous. That would be like comparing Greg Maddux or Pedro Martinez's stats, in the 90's, with those of the dead-ball era (or the power hitters of the dead-ball era, with those of the steroid era.

[fpliii]

Great post, but I would like to add my two cents, as well.

I have read posters comparing players TS%'s in the 60's, with those of the 80's, and even 00's. Which is just plain ridiculous. That would be like comparing Greg Maddux or Pedro Martinez's stats, in the 90's, with those of the dead-ball era (or the power hitters of the dead-ball era, with those of the steroid era.
I suppose. I computed positional (G-F-C) medians for TSA and TS% by season which I can post later today if you're interested.

[LAZERUSS]

I suppose. I computed positional (G-F-C) medians for TSA and TS% by season which I can post later today if you're interested.

Of course. And please post it here for everyone to see.

[SCdac]

Interesting stat, but in terms of player comparisons, evaluations, and rankings, puts too much emphasis on FT's and FT% for my blood. Yeah Kyle Kover or Brent Barry may have a higher TS% than Dwayne Wade but it's simply a mark of overall offensive efficiency not a true mark of offensive impact, value, or talent. Offensive efficiency means more to me in fantasy basketball than real life ball, because players can and do overcome lack of 3's and FT's and most shots are regular field goals. Tim Duncan is what 158th all time in TS%?

[gts]

Great post, but I would like to add my two cents, as well.

I have read posters comparing players TS%'s in the 60's, with those of the 80's, and even 00's. Which is just plain ridiculous.

why is that? It's a shooting stat, the basket was at the same height, the free throw line the same distance...

Guys are making this overly complicated and making the stat way more than it is...

Seriously are we going start arguing that FT% across the eras can't be compared because of some imagined difference or that a 15 footer was different because they make rulers more precise now than they did in the 60's?

[LAZERUSS]

Interesting stat, but in terms of player comparisons, evaluations, and rankings, puts too much emphasis on FT's and FT% for my blood. Yeah Kyle Kover or Brent Barry may have a higher TS% than Dwayne Wade but it's simply a mark of overall offensive efficiency not a true mark of offensive impact, value, or talent. Offensive efficiency means more to me in fantasy basketball than real life ball, because players can and do overcome lack of 3's and FT's and most shots are regular field goals. Tim Duncan is what 158th all time in TS%?

Agreed. Tyson Chandler and Deandre Jordan couldn't hit the rim from beyond 5 ft, but their TS%'s are exceptionally high. And we know that Steve Kerr would have slaughtered MJ in any kind of unguarded shooting competition, as well.

[Psileas]

Interesting stat, but in terms of player comparisons, evaluations, and rankings, puts too much emphasis on FT's and FT% for my blood. Yeah Kyle Kover or Brent Barry may have a higher TS% than Dwayne Wade but it's simply a mark of overall offensive efficiency not a true mark of offensive impact, value, or talent. Offensive efficiency means more to me in fantasy basketball than real life ball, because players can and do overcome lack of 3's and FT's and most shots are regular field goals. Tim Duncan is what 158th all time in TS%?

I agree. TS% only tries to tell you roughly how efficient a scorer someone is, but tells you nothing about how he manages to be this efficient (or inefficient). A good FT shooter who rarely draws fouls, a bad shooter who draws lots of fouls, a 3-point specialist, a 300 lb banger, all of them may be posting TS%'s that overlap with each other and offer nothing of substance to anyone not dealing with fantasy or similar stuff and tries to determine someone's strong and weak spots. In a way, it's like a less biased, more objective type of PER stat. It fuses what exists in the boxscore, giving you a number which may be indicative of something, but can be seen from a zillion different angles.

And, like others mentioned, like PER (and basically every stat), only comparisons of same-era TS%'s make any real sense.

[Psileas]

why is that? It's a shooting stat, the basket was at the same height, the free throw line the same distance...

Guys are making this overly complicated and making the stat way more than it is...

Seriously are we going start arguing that FT% across the eras can't be compared because of some imagined difference or that a 15 footer was different because they make rulers more precise now than they did in the 60's?

No, but there's going to be a difference in efficiency stats if, in different eras, a different number of FT's are awarded per case, if 3's exist in some and don't in others, etc.
Plus, the evolution of defensive and offensive schemes. Like in all stats, comparisons between different eras will lead to lots of misjudgments.

[LAZERUSS]

why is that? It's a shooting stat, the basket was at the same height, the free throw line the same distance...

Guys are making this overly complicated and making the stat way more than it is...

Seriously are we going start arguing that FT% across the eras can't be compared because of some imagined difference or that a 15 footer was different because they make rulers more precise now than they did in the 60's?

You CAN compare FT%'s. Hell, the NBA shot better in the 58-59 season from the line, than they did just last year.

BUT, you can't compare the rest of their games. For instance, the lanes were much more compacted in the early 60's, and long-range shooting was discouraged (because a 25 ft two was worth the same as a dunk.) Not to mention that the SCHEDULING was much more BRUTAL.

And,before someone says that defenses were worse, how come a prime KAJ shot much worse in the 70's, than he did in the 80's? And how do explain in his 39 H2H games with an aging Thurmond, from 69-73, that he only shot .440 from the field? Or that he shot .464 against an aging Chamberlain in his 28. And yet, a 38-39 year old Kareem was averaging 33 ppg on .621 in his first ten straight games against a young Hakeem? My god, a 37-41 year old KAJ outscored a 23-26 year old Hakeem in their 23 career H2H's, and in fact, he outshot Hakeem by a .610 to .512 margin in those 23 H2H's.

Furthermore, how come, player-for-player, the players that spanned the early 60's to the late 60's (and even into the 70's) shot considerably better in the latter part of the decade (or in the 70's.) Go ahead, look up players like WILT, then Johnny Green, Darrall Imhoff, John Havlicek, Nate Thurmond, Elgin baylor, Jerry West, etc. etc. Did all of them learn to shoot later in their careers.

And how come players like Kareem, Gilmore (especially Gilmore), Dantley, and virtuallu everyone else, shoot much better in the 80's, than they did in the 70's? Even at advanced ages?

And conversely, look up players like Ewing, Hakeem, and D-Robinson...all of them better, to much better, very early in their careers, and then mostly declined after that. Did they slowly lose their shooting ability?

[chips93]

There really is no flaw if you take it within the right context. Really no stat is flawed. It's usually the person claiming what the stat does that is flawed.

:applause:

numbers never lie

[gts]

No, but there's going to be a difference in efficiency stats if, in different eras, a different number of FT's are awarded per case, if 3's exist in some and don't in others, etc.
Plus, the evolution of defensive and offensive schemes. Like in all stats, comparisons between different eras will lead to lots of misjudgments.

As far as three's go if you're discussing/comparing just shooting ability across eras (pre 3 era vs after it was introduced) just toss out the threes and recalculate...

I mean that's all you're going to really use the stat for, it was never meant to be a player comparison stat it was meant to be a stat used for judging players operating with the same system or within similar systems..

That's why I say people are making this more complicated than it has to be, if you want to use it to compare players across eras or from different teams just make an adjustment to the numbers you put in and go for it...

In the end it's just glorified FG% lets not make it something it was never meant to be

[chips93]

Team B got to the line [more] and shot [more] threes. I don't need TS% to tell me that. :confusedshrug:

it combines 6 different numbers (FGM, FGA, 3PA, 3PM, FTA and FTM) into one metric for efficiency.

id rather just read the TS% to find a player's efficiency, than do the math to find out.

[IGOTGAME]

:applause:

numbers never lie

but without an argument behind them they don't say much either.

[bdreason]

Exactly, which is why just looking at FG% is useless as it can be replaced by better FT and 3 pt shooting which reflects in TS%. A team with 40% shooting can beat a team with 60% shooting, a player with 45% shooting can still be more efficient than a player with 55% shooting.


Except when the refs decide to swallow their whistles come playoff time, players with a high TS% because they live at the line won't be nearly as effective/efficient at scoring. The best modern example is probably James Harden. Watching him fail at flopping in the playoffs last year was hilarious. Without the FT line, he's just another jump shooter.

[fpliii]

Of course. And please post it here for everyone to see.


Season League gTSA gTS% fTSA fTS% cTSA cTS%
1955 NBA 13 45% 14 48% 14 49%
1956 NBA 12 45% 14 48% 15 48%
1957 NBA 13 42% 15 45% 14 47%
1958 NBA 14 44% 18 48% 16 47%
1959 NBA 13 44% 19 47% 15 47%
1960 NBA 13 45% 22 49% 15 48%
1961 NBA 15 48% 22 50% 16 48%
1962 NBA 15 47% 16 49% 18 49%
1963 NBA 14 48% 17 49% 17 49%
1964 NBA 12 49% 17 49% 17 50%
1965 NBA 15 50% 16 48% 15 48%
1966 NBA 19 49% 15 48% 15 48%
1967 NBA 16 50% 16 50% 16 50%
1968 NBA 17 51% 15 50% 15 52%
1969 NBA 17 49% 16 50% 14 51%
1970 NBA 17 52% 15 53% 13 52%
1971 NBA 17 51% 14 50% 16 50%
1972 NBA 15 51% 16 51% 15 51%
1973 NBA 16 51% 16 50% 14 51%
1974 NBA 17 51% 16 51% 13 51%
1975 NBA 15 51% 13 50% 11 51%
1976 NBA 16 51% 13 50% 15 52%
1977 NBA 16 51% 14 51% 12 52%
1978 NBA 15 51% 13 51% 13 54%
1979 NBA 15 51% 15 54% 14 54%
1980 NBA 14 53% 14 53% 13 55%
1981 NBA 13 54% 13 53% 13 54%
1982 NBA 12 53% 14 55% 12 56%
1983 NBA 14 52% 15 54% 13 55%
1984 NBA 13 53% 15 55% 13 57%
1985 NBA 13 54% 15 55% 12 56%
1986 NBA 12 54% 15 55% 13 55%
1987 NBA 13 53% 14 56% 13 55%
1988 NBA 13 54% 15 54% 12 55%
1989 NBA 14 53% 14 55% 13 56%
1990 NBA 14 54% 15 55% 13 54%
1991 NBA 13 54% 14 54% 11 54%
1992 NBA 14 54% 13 55% 13 55%
1993 NBA 14 54% 14 54% 13 55%
1994 NBA 14 53% 13 54% 13 55%
1995 NBA 13 55% 13 55% 10 56%
1996 NBA 12 55% 12 55% 12 55%
1997 NBA 13 53% 12 54% 14 55%
1998 NBA 12 53% 12 53% 13 54%
1999 NBA 12 52% 12 53% 11 53%
2000 NBA 13 53% 13 53% 11 55%
2001 NBA 13 52% 12 53% 10 53%
2002 NBA 13 52% 12 52% 11 56%
2003 NBA 13 52% 12 53% 9 54%
2004 NBA 13 51% 13 53% 9 54%
2005 NBA 12 53% 13 54% 9 55%
2006 NBA 12 54% 13 55% 10 56%
2007 NBA 13 54% 13 55% 10 56%
2008 NBA 12 55% 13 55% 10 58%
2009 NBA 12 55% 13 55% 10 58%
2010 NBA 12 54% 13 55% 11 56%
2011 NBA 12 54% 12 55% 9 58%
2012 NBA 12 53% 12 54% 11 56%
2013 NBA 13 54% 12 54% 11 56%
1968 ABA 16 48% 16 50% 13 45%
1969 ABA 18 50% 15 51% 11 50%
1970 ABA 14 52% 15 52% 13 51%
1971 ABA 17 52% 14 52% 14 55%
1972 ABA 15 53% 14 51% 15 55%
1973 ABA 14 53% 12 52% 14 56%
1974 ABA 12 51% 15 50% 13 54%
1975 ABA 13 51% 15 52% 15 56%
1976 ABA 16 53% 13 52% 16 53%

[gts]

but without an argument behind them they don't say much either.

As they say about stats if you torture them long enough they'll tell you anything you want to hear

[Young X]

Except when the refs decide to swallow their whistles come playoff time, players with a high TS% because they live at the line won't be nearly as effective/efficient at scoring. The best modern example is probably James Harden. Watching him fail at flopping in the playoffs last year was hilarious. Without the FT line, he's just another jump shooter.Yeah and then his struggles will show in his postseason TS%. :confusedshrug:

[Rose'sACL]

Dudes that live at the line (those that get too much star treatment, so soft-era gets the benefit) and shot-jackers from 3pt land get too much "credit".
3 pt shot for players like curry and lillard are legit shots. stop posting shit in bold just because you think that people might not read what you write.
If you can make 3s on consistent basis then there is no harm in taking them as 3s normally results in long rebounds which are easier to get on offense.
lebron has shot more than 100 3s for the season and even though i get the feeling that he doesn't like taking 3s, he is clearly trying to improve from 3 to make defense more honest.
You belong with all the old people who think that 3 pt line destroyed the NBA. TS% will only be high for players like curry if they are shooting well and not if they are only making 30% of them.
Also, free throws are important part of the game and this is why TS% is a great stat. You ofcourse have to factor in PPG to truly understand how good of a scorer someone is.
Durant most probably will go down as at least top 3 scorer of all time. You can hate as much as you want. He would have scored even more in 80s.
TS% is a great stat. The problem is that people only use it when it suits their agenda.

[Psileas]

As far as three's go if you're discussing/comparing just shooting ability across eras (pre 3 era vs after it was introduced) just toss out the threes and recalculate...

I mean that's all you're going to really use the stat for, it was never meant to be a player comparison stat it was meant to be a stat used for judging players operating with the same system or within similar systems..

That's why I say people are making this more complicated than it has to be, if you want to use it to compare players across eras or from different teams just make an adjustment to the numbers you put in and go for it...

In the end it's just glorified FG% lets not make it something it was never meant to be

Which is why I mentioned that it's useless to make comparisons across different eras.

BTW, you don't toss out 3's. You convert them to 2's and recalculate.

For example, Kobe's actual TS% is 31700 / 2 (24374 + 4175) = 55.5%
Without 3's, we subtract 1640 pts and the rest remains unchanged. The result: A significantly lower 52.6%.

[SHAQisGOAT]

And, like others mentioned, like PER (and basically every stat), only comparisons of same-era TS%'s make any real sense.

This.

People forget that a lot though.

For "something" like TS%, you must remember the 3pt line was only introduced in 1980 and, also, let's look at 40 years ago, when average league pace was 107.8 as opposed to 94 right now, the guys that went to the line more weren't getting more than 7 FTA's per game (per36), right now you got guys at the top around 9 or 10... So yea, you know what story that tells. Pretty ridiculous if you ask me.

[SHAQisGOAT]

3 pt shot for players like curry and lillard are legit shots. stop posting shit in bold just because you think that people might not read what you write.
If you can make 3s on consistent basis then there is no harm in taking them as 3s normally results in long rebounds which are easier to get on offense.
lebron has shot more than 100 3s for the season and even though i get the feeling that he doesn't like taking 3s, he is clearly trying to improve from 3 to make defense more honest.
You belong with all the old people who think that 3 pt line destroyed the NBA. TS% will only be high for players like curry if they are shooting well and not if they are only making 30% of them.
Also, free throws are important part of the game and this is why TS% is a great stat. You ofcourse have to factor in PPG to truly understand how good of a scorer someone is.
Durant most probably will go down as at least top 3 scorer of all time. You can hate as much as you want. He would have scored even more in 80s.
TS% is a great stat. The problem is that people only use it when it suits their agenda.

:biggums:

Look at this ignorant child getting all mad over one simple paragraph, putting words in my mouth and stating dumb shit... :oldlol:

[red1]

ts% is a useful stat and is the best measure of scoring efficiency

[D.J.]

1)You have a guy who shoots a somewhat low two point field goal percentage, but is an elite three point shooter and shoots well at the line.

2)You have a guy who shoots close to 60% from the field, but is barely hitting 50% at the line.


It's not that it's flawed, but it can be deceiving.

[Rose'sACL]

:biggums:

Look at this ignorant child getting all mad over one simple paragraph, putting words in my mouth and stating dumb shit... :oldlol:
i quoted you. i never edited your quote. why are you acting like a 12 yr old? you are the only one who types everything in bold on this forum and you are making it worse by hating on players because they can draw fouls.
If you think that they will not get those same calls in postseason then i am sure their TS% will show that too and you can tell people that they are not as good in the postseason.
also, 3 point shooting is a great tool and if you have high TS% if you shoot 3 well then TS% is an even better indicator. Your quote that players who shoot 3s get too much credit just shows that you don't even understand how TS% is calculated. you have to be good from 3 pt range to have a good TS%.
what is so hard for you to understand?

[Odinn]

Actually, the only flaw of TS% is that 0.44 multiplier. There should be a unique multiplier for every player and every season.

[SHAQisGOAT]

i quoted you. i never edited your quote. why are you acting like a 12 yr old? you are the only one who types everything in bold on this forum and you are making it worse by hating on players because they can draw fouls.
If you think that they will not get those same calls in postseason then i am sure their TS% will show that too and you can tell people that they are not as good in the postseason.
also, 3 point shooting is a great tool and if you have high TS% if you shoot 3 well then TS% is an even better indicator. Your quote that players who shoot 3s get too much credit just shows that you don't even understand how TS% is calculated. you have to be good from 3 pt range to have a good TS%.
what is so hard for you to understand?

Quoted me? Yes you did but it's not like you didn't say anything afterwards. Are you that dumb? You start saying some shit about Durant and Curry, like when did I talk about them? Or hated on them? Or when did I say the 3pt line ruined the NBA? Just chill kid, relax. Why you mad? You're not even acting at all, I'm pretty sure you're a 12 year old or so.

Hating? When did I hate on anyone? I was just stating that nowadays superstar treatment is getting out of hand, ticky-tack fouls are ridiculous and some players live at the line, way more FT's than their ability suggests. Let me give an example, allow me to quote myself:

For "something" like TS%, you must remember the 3pt line was only introduced in 1980 and, also, let's look at 40 years ago, when average league pace was 107.8 as opposed to 94 right now, the guys that went to the line more weren't getting more than 7 FTA's per game (per36), right now you got guys at the top around 9 or 10... So yea, you know what story that tells. Pretty ridiculous if you ask me.

Don't understand how it's calculated? :lol I've already finish college, I'm sure you're not even in high school. Such a hard formula.:rolleyes:
I'll say it again, looking at TS% is too easy to give too much credit to shot-jackers from 3pt land and players who live at the line (getting too much star treatment).
Stat-geeks like you are funny.

Actually, putting it in a better form, I might say the actual "stat" doesn't have flaws but the people who use it do. Gotta use it in context, gotta look at everything, can't really compare across eras rather against their peers and, again, within context.

I write in bold if I want to, wtf is it to you? I've never called you out on your terrible english (in your posts.. **** capital letters for example).

[Rose'sACL]

Quoted me? Yes you did but it's not like you didn't say anything afterwards. Are you that dumb? You start saying some shit about Durant and Curry, like when did I talk about them? Or hated on them? Or when did I say the 3pt line ruined the NBA? Just chill kid, relax. Why you mad? You're not even acting at all, I'm pretty sure you're a 12 year old or so.

Hating? When did I hate on anyone? I was just stating that nowadays superstar treatment is getting out of hand, ticky-tack fouls are ridiculous and some players live at the line, way more FT's than their ability suggests. Let me give an example, allow me to quote myself:


Don't understand how it's calculated? :lol I've already finish college, I'm sure you're not even in high school. Such a hard formula.:rolleyes:
I'll say it again, looking at TS% is too easy to give too much credit to shot-jackers from 3pt land and players who live at the line (getting too much star treatment).
Stat-geeks like you are funny.

Actually, putting it in a better form, I might say the actual "stat" doesn't have flaws but the people who use it do. Gotta use it in context, gotta look at everything, can't really compare across eras rather against their peers and, again, within context.

I write in bold if I want to, wtf is it to you? I've never called you out on your terrible english (in your posts.. **** capital letters for example).
you again have not explained how shot jackers from 3 are given too much credit. explain to me how. 3>2 so Fg% for 2 point shot and 3 pt shot should be treated differently which is what TS% does.
also, lol @ writing that finishing college is a big achievement and assuming anyone who disagrees with you never went to college. i am assuming you also call a lot of people "son" on internet.
Keep writing in bold though. Your parents just might start caring for you if you write in bold on an internet forum.

[3LiftHeatCurse]

Freethrow warriors have their value inflated.

and 3pt shot jackers.

[SHAQisGOAT]

you again have not explained how shot jackers from 3 are given too much credit. explain to me how. 3>2 so Fg% for 2 point shot and 3 pt shot should be treated differently which is what TS% does.
also, lol @ writing that finishing college is a big achievement and assuming anyone who disagrees with you never went to college. i am assuming you also call a lot of people "son" on internet.
Keep writing in bold though. Your parents just might start caring for you if you write in bold on an internet forum.

Since you come off as pretty dumb, two quick examples instead..

J.R. Smith (2009-10): 15.4 PPG on .414/.338/.706, taking 6.2 3's per game; .515 TS%
LaMarcus Aldridge (2013-14, so far): 23.7 PPG on .473/.000/.808, 0 3's made, took 6; .514 TS%

Kobe Bryant (2008-09): 26.8 PPG on .467/.351/.856, 6.9 FTA's and 4.1 3PA's per game; .561 TS%
James Harden (2013-14, so far): 24.9 PPG on .452/.327/.844, 9.3 FTA's and 6.3 3PA's per game; .603 TS%

Sounds about right huh? :rolleyes:

Who said it was a big achievement? You were the one saying I didn't understand how TS% is calculated. Must be a big achievement to know the formula to TS% and act dumb on an internet forum lmao.
3>2? Really!? Damn, you're going far :rolleyes: Keep up with the stupid arguments.
And damn again, you got jokes man, keep it up, I'm dying here. :rolleyes:

[Rose'sACL]

Since you come off as pretty dumb, two quick examples instead..

J.R. Smith (2009-10): 15.4 PPG on .414/.338/.706, taking 6.2 3's per game; .515 TS%
LaMarcus Aldridge (2013-14, so far): 23.7 PPG on .473/.000/.808, 0 3's made, took 6; .514 TS%

Kobe Bryant (2008-09): 26.8 PPG on .467/.351/.856, 6.9 FTA's and 4.1 3PA's per game; .561 TS%
James Harden (2013-14, so far): 24.9 PPG on .452/.327/.844, 9.3 FTA's and 6.3 3PA's per game; .603 TS%

Sounds about right huh? :rolleyes:

Who said it was a big achievement? You were the one saying I didn't understand how TS% is calculated. Must be a big achievement to know the formula to TS% and act dumb on an internet forum lmao.
3>2? Really!? Damn, you're going far :rolleyes: Keep up with the stupid arguments.
And damn again, you got jokes man, keep it up, I'm dying here. :rolleyes:
and how is that giving JR smith too much credit? Jr smith in 09-10 scored 15.4 ppg on same TS% on which LMA scored 23.7 ppg which clearly tells us that LMA is the better player of the two. TS% and PPG go together just like assists and number of turnovers.
also, harden gets to the line more which results in points on board. how hard is it to understand? If refs stop giving him free throws then TS% will show that too.

[SHAQisGOAT]

and how is that giving JR smith too much credit. Jr smith in 09-10 scored 15.4 ppg on same TS% on which LMA scored 23.7 ppg which clearly tells us that LMA is the better player of the two.
also, harden gets to the line more which results in points on board. how hard is it to understand? If refs stop giving him free throws then TS% will show that too.

:applause:

Thank you for pretty much proving/agreeing with my point.

[Rose'sACL]

:applause:

Thank you for pretty much proving/agreeing with my point.
you are the one who wrote that it gives too much credit to players who draw more fouls or shoot 3s a lot and i just proved that it doesn't. how am i agreeing with you?

it clearly gives the right picture. if you have problem with NBA officiating then hate the refs. don't hate the stat because people actually know that ppg matters a lot when looking at TS%.

[steve]

Seriously, it only gives credit to players who actually make the shots. If the player is missing shots, it doesn't give them any sort of credit. This is the kind of frustrating thread to read because people start arguing about something that has nothing to do with the stat but end up applying it to the stat regardless.

[LAZERUSS]

Season League gTSA gTS% fTSA fTS% cTSA cTS%
1955 NBA 13 45% 14 48% 14 49%
1956 NBA 12 45% 14 48% 15 48%
1957 NBA 13 42% 15 45% 14 47%
1958 NBA 14 44% 18 48% 16 47%
1959 NBA 13 44% 19 47% 15 47%
1960 NBA 13 45% 22 49% 15 48%
1961 NBA 15 48% 22 50% 16 48%
1962 NBA 15 47% 16 49% 18 49%
1963 NBA 14 48% 17 49% 17 49%
1964 NBA 12 49% 17 49% 17 50%
1965 NBA 15 50% 16 48% 15 48%
1966 NBA 19 49% 15 48% 15 48%
1967 NBA 16 50% 16 50% 16 50%
1968 NBA 17 51% 15 50% 15 52%
1969 NBA 17 49% 16 50% 14 51%
1970 NBA 17 52% 15 53% 13 52%
1971 NBA 17 51% 14 50% 16 50%
1972 NBA 15 51% 16 51% 15 51%
1973 NBA 16 51% 16 50% 14 51%
1974 NBA 17 51% 16 51% 13 51%
1975 NBA 15 51% 13 50% 11 51%
1976 NBA 16 51% 13 50% 15 52%
1977 NBA 16 51% 14 51% 12 52%
1978 NBA 15 51% 13 51% 13 54%
1979 NBA 15 51% 15 54% 14 54%
1980 NBA 14 53% 14 53% 13 55%
1981 NBA 13 54% 13 53% 13 54%
1982 NBA 12 53% 14 55% 12 56%
1983 NBA 14 52% 15 54% 13 55%
1984 NBA 13 53% 15 55% 13 57%
1985 NBA 13 54% 15 55% 12 56%
1986 NBA 12 54% 15 55% 13 55%
1987 NBA 13 53% 14 56% 13 55%
1988 NBA 13 54% 15 54% 12 55%
1989 NBA 14 53% 14 55% 13 56%
1990 NBA 14 54% 15 55% 13 54%
1991 NBA 13 54% 14 54% 11 54%
1992 NBA 14 54% 13 55% 13 55%
1993 NBA 14 54% 14 54% 13 55%
1994 NBA 14 53% 13 54% 13 55%
1995 NBA 13 55% 13 55% 10 56%
1996 NBA 12 55% 12 55% 12 55%
1997 NBA 13 53% 12 54% 14 55%
1998 NBA 12 53% 12 53% 13 54%
1999 NBA 12 52% 12 53% 11 53%
2000 NBA 13 53% 13 53% 11 55%
2001 NBA 13 52% 12 53% 10 53%
2002 NBA 13 52% 12 52% 11 56%
2003 NBA 13 52% 12 53% 9 54%
2004 NBA 13 51% 13 53% 9 54%
2005 NBA 12 53% 13 54% 9 55%
2006 NBA 12 54% 13 55% 10 56%
2007 NBA 13 54% 13 55% 10 56%
2008 NBA 12 55% 13 55% 10 58%
2009 NBA 12 55% 13 55% 10 58%
2010 NBA 12 54% 13 55% 11 56%
2011 NBA 12 54% 12 55% 9 58%
2012 NBA 12 53% 12 54% 11 56%
2013 NBA 13 54% 12 54% 11 56%
1968 ABA 16 48% 16 50% 13 45%
1969 ABA 18 50% 15 51% 11 50%
1970 ABA 14 52% 15 52% 13 51%
1971 ABA 17 52% 14 52% 14 55%
1972 ABA 15 53% 14 51% 15 55%
1973 ABA 14 53% 12 52% 14 56%
1974 ABA 12 51% 15 50% 13 54%
1975 ABA 13 51% 15 52% 15 56%
1976 ABA 16 53% 13 52% 16 53%

Just fantastic research.

And it gives a much better perspective. For example, in Kareem's 79-80 season, he scored 26.2 ppg on a TS% of .639 ...in a league in which the centers had a TS% of .550 (and the league, as a whole, was at about .540.) In his 70-71 season, he averaged 31.7 ppg on a .603 TS%, in a league in which the centers averaged about a .500 (and the league average was just slightly higher, maybe about .503.) He actually had a higher differential against the league average in '71, than he did in '80.

This gives a much better indication of just how dominant players really were, in these "cross-era" comparisons.