TS % or FG %

[pastis]

why people wanna take the TS% or FG% for praising a guy who plays always under the rim, is waiting for the assist and makes the eaZy layup in comparison with tough shooting guys?

is it not much easier to make the layup or the 2-5 feet basket instead of hitting the ridiculous fadeaway and being defended ultra hard on the same time?

so why b1atches take the TS% or FG% ?

you can compare kobe with wades numbers
but not Dirk with Duncan
but not Duncan with James
but not Duncan with Manu
but not Duncan with Parker etc
you can compare Duncan to the Bobcats center or Howards numbers. but thats it.

[navy]

It's easier to just post fg/3fg/ft% and then points per game.

I was never a fan of the arbitrary TS%

[pastis]

It's easier to just post fg/3fg/ft% and then points per game.

I was never a fan of the arbitrary TS%

yes, but even posting just fg/3fg/ft% and then points per game: can you realy compare these numbers of a center with a PF or a sg etc?

a center will always be around the 50-58 FG% and maybe even better TS %...a PF or a sg will hardly reach these numbers.

[russwest0]

eFG% is technically the best but they all have their own uses

[T_L_P]

TS% incorporates field goal shooting and free throw shooting.

If you play close to the basket for ez points, you're usually not going to be a great FT shooter. If you like to hang around on the perimeter, you're more likely to be a good FT shooter.

The formula is fine.

[navy]

yes, but even posting just fg/3fg/ft% and then points per game: can you realy compare these numbers of a center with a PF or a sg etc?

a center will always be around the 50-58 FG% and maybe even better TS %...a PF or a sg will hardly reach these numbers.

Yes there is an advantage being bigger. Which is why PPG matter as well.

Scoring + Efficiency

Why low post scorers are so valuable.

[riseagainst]

i personally use FGA. the higher the better.

[pastis]

TS% incorporates field goal shooting and free throw shooting.

If you play close to the basket for ez points, you're usually not going to be a great FT shooter. If you like to hang around on the perimeter, you're more likely to be a good FT shooter.

The formula is fine.

in your dreams it is fine.

[NumberSix]

eFG% is technically the best but they all have their own uses
This.

All you need is eFG% and FT% for a perfectly accurate account of a players scoring efficiency.

[T_L_P]

in your dreams it is fine.

Wow, what an intuitive comeback.

[Mr. I'm So Rad]

Both are equally useless without context...and most coaches don't care about either when it comes to great players.

[Ne 1]

For scoring efficiency from the field, use eFG%. For overall scoring efficiency, use TS%. I personally prefer TS% over FG%, which adjusts for the value of a three point shot and free throw shooting - extremely important factors in valuing someone's efficiency. FG% only tells you their percentage of overall shots from the field but doesn't take into consideration that a three point shot results in more points than a two point shot, or that free throws matter.

TS% is a pretty good stat because it helps show the value of players like Dirk and other perimeter shooting big men, while showing that their overall efficiency isn't much worse than more traditional big men.

[Akrazotile]

why people wanna take the TS% or FG% for praising a guy who plays always under the rim, is waiting for the assist and makes the eaZy layup in comparison with tough shooting guys?

is it not much easier to make the layup or the 2-5 feet basket instead of hitting the ridiculous fadeaway and being defended ultra hard on the same time?

so why b1atches take the TS% or FG% ?

you can compare kobe with wades numbers
but not Dirk with Duncan
but not Duncan with James
but not Duncan with Manu
but not Duncan with Parker etc
you can compare Duncan to the Bobcats center or Howards numbers. but thats it.


Duncan > Kobe

[tmacattack33]

why people wanna take the TS% or FG% for praising a guy who plays always under the rim, is waiting for the assist and makes the eaZy layup in comparison with tough shooting guys?

is it not much easier to make the layup or the 2-5 feet basket instead of hitting the ridiculous fadeaway and being defended ultra hard on the same time?

so why b1atches take the TS% or FG% ?

you can compare kobe with wades numbers
but not Dirk with Duncan
but not Duncan with James
but not Duncan with Manu
but not Duncan with Parker etc
you can compare Duncan to the Bobcats center or Howards numbers. but thats it.


Not sure what you're saying, but if you're breaking it down between an assisted basket and a non-assisted basket then you are correct.

If you're basing it off just tough shots vs easy shots then you are incorrect, because if someone can get to the rim with ease and put up a high percentage lay-up or dunk, then good for them.

[Psileas]

TS % or FG %

Neither. 1p%+2p%+3p% plus the totals.

[Young X]

Assuming both teams have the same number of rebounds and turnovers the team with the higher TS% will ALWAYS win.

A team that goes 40/80 with no threes (50% FG) loses to a team that goes 37/80 with 10 threes (46% FG) everytime. FG% doesn't tell you that.

From the field, EFG% is the best because it includes extra points from 3 pointers only problem is the team that's better from the field isn't always the best offensive team and doesn't always win. The better offensive team is the team with more points per possession and TS% = points per possession.

[Rose'sACL]

TS% is the best one. You can use eFG% if you don't like free throws. Both are better than fg%.