Total shooting this total shooting that

[CeltsGarlic]

Fvck TS%!

Im the only one from the times here people looked at FG% to decide if someone is hitting their shots? Im the only one who remembers when comparison threads didnt have one season TS% and the other one FG% selected.. Im the only one who likes his stats raw?

#FvckTS%

[SexSymbol]

Get off my lawn you damn kids

[Nikola_]

but TS% looks good because its usually above 50..

[CeltsGarlic]

Back in my day above 50's usually didnt look good..

[dunksby]

Fvck TS%!

Im the only one from the times here people looked at FG% to decide if someone is hitting their shots? Im the only one who remembers when comparison threads didnt have one season TS% and the other one FG% selected.. Im the only one who likes his stats raw?

#FvckTS%
It stands for True Shooting Percentage you dumbass.

[CeltsGarlic]

It stands for True Shooting Percentage you dumbass.

Boy, you dont start what you cant handle.

[dunksby]

Boy, you dont start what you cant handle.
Do you have bad breath? Cause I can't handle talking to people who have foul breath.

[tontoz]

OP is a dumbass. If you don't like TS then use EFG which doesn't include free throws.

FG actually penalizes players for shooting 3s. If a guy takes a lot of 3s and shoots them at 39% that is good but it typically brings down his FG%

Look at Lillard vs Wall

FG%

Lillard 45.4%
Wall 44.8%

Lillard's is better by .6%

EFG%

Lillard 53.7%
Wall 47.9%

Lillard's is better by 5.8%


FG% is useless unless you are looking at players who don't shoot 3s.

[CeltsGarlic]

OP is a dumbass. If you don't like TS then use EFG which doesn't include free throws.

FG actually penalizes players for shooting 3s. If a guy takes a lot of 3s and shoots them at 39% that is good but it typically brings down his FG%

Look at Lillard vs Wall

FG%

Lillard 45.4%
Wall 44.8%

Lillard's is better by .6%

EFG%

Lillard 53.7%
Wall 47.9%

Lillard's is better by 5.8%


FG% is useless unless you are looking at players who don't shoot 3s.

Yeah, so you also need to use common sense when looking at stats like FG, but I guess thats not for you.

[StephHamann]

We need a new statistic that doesn't count dunks and layups as shooting.

Brandan wright "shoots" something like 70% but we all know he can't shoot a j if his live depended on it.

[tontoz]

Yeah, so you also need to use common sense when looking at stats like FG, but I guess thats not for you.


This from a guy who didn't even know what TS stands for. :lol

Common sense tells us that FG% is basically worthless in the 3 point era. Better to use a stat that doesn't require interpretation.

[Prometheus]

Fvck TS%!

Im the only one from the times here people looked at FG% to decide if someone is hitting their shots? Im the only one who remembers when comparison threads didnt have one season TS% and the other one FG% selected.. Im the only one who likes his stats raw?

#FvckTS%

http://venturebeat.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/angry-old-man-with-computer.jpg

[Akhenaten]

goofy, lame azz stat nerd bullcrap

the idea that there is such a thing as a "true" percentage is so inane, so stupid...I can't.

PPP has NOTHING to do with percentage
they just comingled two completely separate precepts and masquerade is as being "advanced".

The stat basically tells us that a player get's more points more making a 3 point basket as opposed to a 2, just absolutely brilliant stuff :rolleyes: .

"True" completely ignore MISSED shots.
So that if a player make 40 out of 100 three point shots he's just as effective/efficient as a player who makes 60 out of 100 2 point attempts.

They both "effectively" or "truly" shot 60%

NO THEY DID NOT!
you cant award percentage point because they happen to have the same point TOTALS, the 20 extra MISSED shots don't factor in AT ALL.

Shaq scoring a 120 points on 60% is not nowhere near the same as Kobe scoring 120 on 40%, only a simpleton who thinks he's an intellectual thinks like that (like goofy azz Hollinger and the other "advanced" stat nerds).

[riseagainst]

OP is the type of person who hates TS% but loves PER and WS.

[Akhenaten]

OP is the type of person who hates TS% but loves PER and WS.

That sh!t stupid too.

[Optimus Prime]

Advanced stats like TS, PER, WS, etc. were only created in order to prop up manufactured "legends" like LeBron and tear down real legends like MJ, Kobe, etc.

They are to be dismissed, ridiculed then ignored by anyone who knows and understands basketball. The same should be done to anyone who uses advanced stats in their arguments.

:kobe:

[tontoz]

Advanced stats like TS, PER, WS, etc. were only created in order to prop up manufactured "legends" like LeBron and tear down real legends like MJ, Kobe, etc.

They are to be dismissed, ridiculed then ignored by anyone who knows and understands basketball. The same should be done to anyone who uses advanced stats in their arguments.

:kobe:


In other words the advanced stats expose Kobe's inefficiency so you don't like them. OK

[Pointguard]

Fvck TS%!

Im the only one from the times here people looked at FG% to decide if someone is hitting their shots? Im the only one who remembers when comparison threads didnt have one season TS% and the other one FG% selected.. Im the only one who likes his stats raw?

#FvckTS%
Yes ODB is that you???
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ITLNzPoEqs

[f0und]

its like all the kobe kids looked at efficiency stats and saw that their daddy is at the low end in just about every way. then they stumbled upon a new made up stat, TS%. i think TS% became a thing only in the last 6-7 years. at that moment they saw their hope. they were like "*uck yeah!! TS% thats what im talking about. finally we have our secret weapon to combat those who would dare defile our god." now thats what theyve been running with ever since.

oh, and harden hard-ons have now joined jumped on the TS% bandwagon too.

[LEFT4DEAD]

Advanced stats like TS, PER, WS, etc. were only created in order to prop up manufactured "legends" like LeBron and tear down real legends like MJ, Kobe, etc.

They are to be dismissed, ridiculed then ignored by anyone who knows and understands basketball. The same should be done to anyone who uses advanced stats in their arguments.

:kobe:
How so when MJ is first in PER and 4th in WS all time. Only TS favours big men over guards, but Im sure he is at the top 10 among guards there.

You mean it shows Kobe's true colors, and thats why it sucks??? :confusedshrug:

[Young X]

I don't get why it's so hard for you guys to understand. It's just points per scoring possession.

If a player took 10 shots and shot 6 FT's, he used about 13 possessions to score. That's 26 points he could've potentially scored. If he ends up scoring 15 points, that means he scored 15 points of the 26 points (57.7%) that he would've scored if he would've made every shot and every FT.

If two teams have the same turnovers and offensive rebounds (meaning they both have the same amount of possessions), the team that scores more per possession (aka TS%) will always win the game.

[Nash]

OP is a dumbass. If you don't like TS then use EFG which doesn't include free throws.

FG actually penalizes players for shooting 3s. If a guy takes a lot of 3s and shoots them at 39% that is good but it typically brings down his FG%


Isn't that the point? To know who is more efficient at actually getting the ball to go through the basket? Attempting a 3 is not that difficult and if you shoot too many 3's then you're clearly not good enough to get yourself higher % shots.

[ralph_i_el]

Fvck TS%!

Im the only one from the times here people looked at FG% to decide if someone is hitting their shots? Im the only one who remembers when comparison threads didnt have one season TS% and the other one FG% selected.. Im the only one who likes his stats raw?

#FvckTS%

FG% means nothing.

If you're against TS% you're a ****ing luddite

[JebronLames]

Isn't that the point? To know who is more efficient at actually getting the ball to go through the basket? Attempting a 3 is not that difficult and if you shoot too many 3's then you're clearly not good enough to get yourself higher % shots.
:facepalm

[tontoz]

Isn't that the point? To know who is more efficient at actually getting the ball to go through the basket? Attempting a 3 is not that difficult and if you shoot too many 3's then you're clearly not good enough to get yourself higher % shots.


:facepalm

Are you saying Ray Allen wasn't good enough to get higher percentage shots? He just settled for 3s that he made at 40% because he wasn't that good?

What exactly are higher percentage shots? Do you think shooting 45% from 10 feet is better than shooting 40% from 3?

[Akhenaten]

I don't get why it's so hard for you guys to understand. It's just points per scoring possession.

.


call it that then, don't conflate it with PERCENTAGES, they are TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PRECEPTS

a percentage is how many times x happens vs how many time y happens THAT'S IT PERIOD

again if Kobe makes 40 3's in a 100 attempts, that's 120 points.
This means he made 40% of his attempts, he missed 60 shots and scored .83 points per possession.

Shaq makes 60 2 point baskets in 100 attempts, that's also 120 points
This means he made 60% of his attempts, he missed 40 shots and also scored .83 points per possession.


They have they same points per possession, they DID NOT "truly" or "effectively" or "virtually" or "practically" or "essentially" or "truly" shoot the same percentage...PERIOD!

It's corny pseudo-intellectual BULLCRAP is what is. I don't need a goofy azz nerd stat to tell me how much a guy scores for every shot he takes. You get 3 points for shot beyond 24' 9, 2 for shots inside of that and 1 for FT's/

"effective", "true", "essential" it's crap lawyers do, take a bag feces and wrap a nice pretty like bow around don't change the fact that it's crap. It's linguistic chicanery and it REALLLLY annoys because you goofballs actually think you're brilliant because you can divide and multiply.:mad:

[chazzy]

Seeing people still struggle with the basic concept of TS% is amazing

[Akhenaten]

Seeing people still struggle with the basic concept of TS% is amazing

Perfect example of those pseudo-intellectuals I was talking about smh.

[ralph_i_el]

Perfect example of those pseudo-intellectuals I was talking about smh.
You're coming off as a huge idiot.

It's a weighted %
Because the point values of shots in basketball are weighted differently.

More than one arithmetic step and all the sudden it's confusing nerd talk to you lol

[Pointguard]

To me its kind of simple:

Take your top ten GOAT and see how they rank in both categories. FG% is definitely a better indicator of greatness. In fact, TS% often works against the GOATs or relegates them to the middle of the pack in almost every case! The most dominant players consistently are high FG% people. especially position wise.

Magic totally destroys Bird in TS%, playoffs and regular season. As much as 75 % points in Bird's healthy prime ('84). That's phenomenal. Yet you will hear frequently on these boards about how Bird was in a different league. Yet, Magic was in a different league TS% wise.

Over the years I would check TS% with players that scored very high and Dantley stood out among the 30ppg scorers - a threshold few players ever get to but there is usually one or two that do attain it within a five year span. Adrian Dantley is the TS% king. You guys never talk about Dantley. Its definitely a stat that is misleading.

[ralph_i_el]

To me its kind of simple:

Take your top ten GOAT and see how they rank in both categories. FG% is definitely a better indicator of greatness. In fact, TS% often works against the GOATs or relegates them to the middle of the pack in almost every case! The most dominant players consistently are high FG% people. especially position wise.

Magic totally destroys Bird in TS%, playoffs and regular season. As much as 75 % points in Bird's healthy prime ('84). That's phenomenal. Yet you will hear frequently on these boards about how Bird was in a different league. Yet, Magic was in a different league TS% wise.

Over the years I would check TS% with players that scored very high and Dantley stood out among the 30ppg scorers - a threshold few players ever get to but there is usually one or two that do attain it within a five year span. Adrian Dantley is the TS% king. You guys never talk about Dantley. Its definitely a stat that is misleading.

You have to look at TS% in the context of usg%. Magic had higher TS%'s than Bird, but only had USG%'s around 20% (average. 100%/5 players). Bird had usg%'s of 25-30%.

[stalkerforlife]

If you don't factor in threes and free throws, that's dumb. Especially if the player shoots a lot of both.

[tontoz]

To me its kind of simple:

Take your top ten GOAT and see how they rank in both categories. FG% is definitely a better indicator of greatness. In fact, TS% often works against the GOATs or relegates them to the middle of the pack in almost every case! The most dominant players consistently are high FG% people. especially position wise.

Magic totally destroys Bird in TS%, playoffs and regular season. As much as 75 % points in Bird's healthy prime ('84). That's phenomenal. Yet you will hear frequently on these boards about how Bird was in a different league. Yet, Magic was in a different league TS% wise.

Over the years I would check TS% with players that scored very high and Dantley stood out among the 30ppg scorers - a threshold few players ever get to but there is usually one or two that do attain it within a five year span. Adrian Dantley is the TS% king. You guys never talk about Dantley. Its definitely a stat that is misleading.


:wtf:

Correlation does not equal causation. You also have to look at overall production when looking at GOAT.

It is obviously easier to maintain high scoring efficiency with a lower scoring average. Magic didn't score as much as Bird so obviously it was easier to maintain higher efficiency.

TS is not a measure of scoring volume, only of efficiency. And it does a much better job than FG.

[stalkerforlife]

You have to look at TS% in the context of usg%. Magic had higher TS%'s than Bird, but only had USG%'s around 20% (average. 100%/5 players). Bird had usg%'s of 25-30%.

Ether.

[GimmeThat]

You people should memorize chess moves more often. Especially the variations just even after a few moves to include counters.

[Mass Debator]

TS% is a regular season stat.

In the playoffs when the game slows down, fouls aren't called on a consistent basis, and games are decided by just a few points, it's those who can score on command that succeed. Although underrated, 2P% is a good indicator for that and it is one of my favorite stat. Jordan was the master of it out on the perimeter.

Let's say there are 1.5 minutes left and the game is within 4 points. Even though someone is around a 36% (pretty good) 3-point shooter, you simply can't have an empty possession with a missed shot. 3-point shots are almost rendered useless for star players in these situations. The ball should be in their hands and jacking 3-point shots on tight defense isn't going to cut it. Driving to the hoop and looking for a foul when the refs are swallowing their whistles isn't a good move either. This is when the mid-range game and ability to dish out to open sharp shooters is extremely important. Pressure defense and getting out in the transition game is just as vital too.

I understand the importance of TS%, but to me, it's more like a "The game is over now, let me check how efficient I scored overall." For FG%, it's like an in game "Damn, I'm missing my shots. I gotta take and make better shots."

[navy]

I dont like TS%, but only because of the .45 that is thrown in the formula. And yes, I know why it is put in there.

[CeltsGarlic]

OP is the type of person who hates TS% but loves PER and WS.

Never said that.

Cant even tell who leads the league in those tbh.

[Akhenaten]

It's a weighted %
Because the point values of shots in basketball are weighted differently.



Is this a fancy way of saying a ft = 1 point, a shot within 23' 9= 3 points, and a shot within 23'9=2 points

WOW:eek: BRILLANT:eek:

my puny brain can barely understand these "weighted values", you are so intellectually advanced :bowdown:

[tontoz]

I dont like TS%, but only because of the .45 that is thrown in the formula. And yes, I know why it is put in there.


What would you prefer? They had to do something to account for possessions that end in free throws.

We already have EFG which measures just shooting from the field.

[Akhenaten]

They had to do something to account for possessions that end in free throws.



Imma let you in on a lil secret bruh, thehy had this stat that has existed for about 60 years...you ready? It's called.......FT shooting %!

It tells you how many ft's a guy has converted vs the amount he has not converted. :eek:

:roll: @ "they had to do something"
yall bout some a the goofiest folks I've ever encountered, gotta love the internet man.

[riseagainst]

Imma let you in on a lil secret bruh, thehy had this stat that has existed for about 60 years...you ready? It's called.......FT shooting %!

It tells you how many ft's a guy has converted vs the amount he has not converted. :eek:

:roll: @ "they had to do something"
yall bout some a the goofiest folks I've ever encountered, gotta love the internet man.

you are an idiot.
:oldlol:
:roll:

[navy]

Imma let you in on a lil secret bruh, thehy had this stat that has existed for about 60 years...you ready? It's called.......FT shooting %!

It tells you how many ft's a guy has converted vs the amount he has not converted. :eek:

:roll: @ "they had to do something"
yall bout some a the goofiest folks I've ever encountered, gotta love the internet man.
He's right though. Have you ever actually looked at the stat?

"The .44 multiplier is because not all free throws take up a possession. Technical foul shots and "and-ones" do not, while there are more than two free throws on one possession with a three-shot foul. Research has determined that about 44% of all free throws take up possessions, thus .44 is used as the multiplier. "

If we wanted a better statistic, each persons ts% would have to calculated with individually different multipliers.

[MP.Trey]

F*ck advanced stats. :applause:

[eklip]

Why would you just look at FG%? I look at PTS scored in in proportion to the FGA, FTA (2 FTA = ~1 FGA).

TS% pretty much puts that into a number, so it's convenient to compare different players. You don't have to use it, though. Just look at the FGA and FTA. There is no magic.

An example:
Player 1: 18 pts on 17 FGA/0FTA (9-17, 53 FG%)
Player 2: 18 pts on 12 FGA/0FTA (6-12, 50 FG%)
Player 3: 18 pts on 10 FGA/6FTA (4-10, 40 FG%)

Obviously player 1 is much worse than player 2 and 3 even though he has better FG%. It's difficult to say which player is more efficient between P2 and P3, because P3 could have had multiple AND-1 plays or fouls on 3 point shots. TS% tries to estimate the number of AND-1 and 3-point fouls, probably based on the league average. The most likely scenario is that P2 was more efficient than P3.

TS% of these three players:
Player 1: 53%
Player 2: 75%
Player 3: 71%

TS% was introduced because FG% and eFG% were so flawed at showing the efficiency of a player. It's just the better stat. In the future there probably won't be an arbitrary estimate in TS% (It's neglectable right now), because we have play by play data to see how every player got to the FT line (And-1, 3P shooting foul, 2P shooting foul, technical fouls).

[tontoz]

Is this a fancy way of saying a ft = 1 point, a shot within 23' 9= 3 points, and a shot within 23'9=2 points

WOW:eek: BRILLANT:eek:

my puny brain can barely understand these "weighted values", you are so intellectually advanced :bowdown:


If you want to look at 2 pt%, 3pt% and FT% separately you can. That option is available at BR. TS is attempting to combine all 3.

Pretty much anything is better than just looking at FG%.

[Kblaze8855]

There is no reason to combine the 3 numbers into one. Show me the shooting percentage...what they shoot from 3...and the FT percentage.

Making it one number gives me less information not more. Shaqs TS was in the 60s multiple times. For his career it was .586...Dirks is .582. I leave it at that...incomplete picture.

I point out that Dirk shot 48%, 38% from 3, and 88% from the line....and Shaq 58%, .045 from 3(1-22 for his career), and 53% from the line....do I not have a better idea what both of them were about?

Why...would I want it in one number? Either way id need to know more than the numbers...but with one of them...I know generally how the final TS% number came to be.

Isnt the why/how...more important than the final number which tells you no details?

TS doesnt need to exist. Not like people online have too much going on in their lives to just write out 3 numbers in a 300 word post instead of one....

[tontoz]

There is no reason to combine the 3 numbers into one. Show me the shooting percentage...what they shoot from 3...and the FT percentage.

Making it one number gives me less information not more. Shaqs TS was in the 60s multiple times. For his career it was .586...Dirks is .582. I leave it at that...incomplete picture.

I point out that Dirk shot 48%, 38% from 3, and 88% from the line....and Shaq 58%, .045 from 3(1-22 for his career), and 53% from the line....do I not have a better idea what both of them were about?

Why...would I want it in one number? Either way id need to know more than the numbers...but with one of them...I know generally how the final TS% number came to be.

Isnt the why/how...more important than the final number which tells you no details?

TS doesnt need to exist. Not like people online have too much going on in their lives to just write out 3 numbers in a 300 word post instead of one....


TS, or pretty much anything, is better than FG%. FG% is worthless because it penalizes guys for shooting 3s.

If you want to look at things separately then look at 2pt%, 3pt%, and FT%. But looking at FG% and 3pt% makes no sense at all.

There is really no reason for FG% to exist.

[Legends66NBA7]

Majority of advanced metrics should be used as team stats.

ORTG, DRTG, SRS, TS, etc....

[GimmeThat]

i guess if you call the really fair minded jounalists, historians.

Then you ought to separate system and character coaches. Both at the hc level as well as the ac level.

[MP.Trey]

TS, or pretty much anything, is better than FG%. FG% is worthless because it penalizes guys for shooting 3s.

If you want to look at things separately then look at 2pt%, 3pt%, and FT%. But looking at FG% and 3pt% makes no sense at all.

There is really no reason for FG% to exist.
FG% should penalize people for shooting threes though. Because threes are a much lower percentage shot than 2 pointers. Field Goal Percentage helps you determine how good somebody's shot selection is.

You should look at all the percentages, FG, 2 pt, 3 pt, FT (as well as how many attempts are being taken of each) and draw your own conclusions. Not look to one "master stat" to tell us how good of a scorer/shooter someone is. That's just ridiculous.

[navy]

What would you prefer? They had to do something to account for possessions that end in free throws.

We already have EFG which measures just shooting from the field.
I prefer fg%/3p%/ft% and fga/3pa/fta just like that. As Kblaze said, there was no need to put them all together. Just make sure you post all three when dealing with players.

[oarabbus]

Why...would I want it in one number? Either way id need to know more than the numbers...but with one of them...I know generally how the final TS% number came to be.

Isnt the why/how...more important than the final number which tells you no details?

TS doesnt need to exist. Not like people online have too much going on in their lives to just write out 3 numbers in a 300 word post instead of one....

Because that number makes you look like you're near GOAT caliber (Harden)



He's right though. Have you ever actually looked at the stat?

"The .44 multiplier is because not all free throws take up a possession. Technical foul shots and "and-ones" do not, while there are more than two free throws on one possession with a three-shot foul. Research has determined that about 44% of all free throws take up possessions, thus .44 is used as the multiplier. "

If we wanted a better statistic, each persons ts% would have to calculated with individually different multipliers.


:applause: This guy gets it.

[Kblaze8855]

TS, or pretty much anything, is better than FG%. FG% is worthless because it penalizes guys for shooting 3s.

If you want to look at things separately then look at 2pt%, 3pt%, and FT%. But looking at FG% and 3pt% makes no sense at all.

There is really no reason for FG% to exist.



To an idiot or someone who has never seen them play.

You think anyone sees Ray allens 45% shooting and thinks he cant shoot?

Who would you even be giving more information to...by using TS? The nobody who doesnt know Ray shot a lot of threes?

Future generations who might not know his game....but STILL have to go look at FG, 3 pointers, and FTs to know how the number came to be?

If you dont know a guys game...and are told his TS%...you still know nothing about how he scores.

You still have to see if hes shooting threes....if hes shooting FTs...

Its a number that tells you nothing...without the data that is used to create it.

So why not just post the data that creates it and skip the middle point of people having to google the guy to see why he shot that TS%?

Just list the numbers that combine to form it....its just more accurate.

Kareems TS is higher than Ray Allens. If I dont know anything about either....dont I still need a lot more information to determine better shooter? If so....why not just direct me to the separate numbers...which is what id go get to decide the matter anyway?

[ArbitraryWater]

It's obviously for people who are insecure about basic efficiency... And don't give me this crap I about combining fg% and ft%, I can just look at them seperately and I know enough.


We need a new statistic that doesn't count dunks and layups as shooting.

Brandan wright "shoots" something like 70% but we all know he can't shoot a j if his live depended on it.

:biggums:

Never go full retard.

[Pointguard]

:wtf:
Correlation does not equal causation. You also have to look at overall production when looking at GOAT.
:eek:
Who the hell is talking about causation??? If its a good stat it will manifest itself in the greatest players. If eight out of ten of the greatest have much more a relationship to FG% than TS% its not really even close. None of the Top Goats were TS% upper echelons. The most dominant players ever were great in FG%. correlation.


It is obviously easier to maintain high scoring efficiency with a lower scoring average. Magic didn't score as much as Bird so obviously it was easier to maintain higher efficiency.
Thus, the mention of Adrian Dantley as the supreme example of efficiency. What excuse are you going to give me now??? Dantley scored much more than Bird and his TS% was much, much better.


TS is not a measure of scoring volume, only of efficiency. And it does a much better job than FG.
Show me your examples.

Shaq and Wilt the two most dominant players ever. Numerous, many, FG% titles between them. Your go.

[tontoz]

To an idiot or someone who has never seen them play.

You think anyone sees Ray allens 45% shooting and thinks he cant shoot?

Who would you even be giving more information to...by using TS? The nobody who doesnt know Ray shot a lot of threes?

Future generations who might not know his game....but STILL have to go look at FG, 3 pointers, and FTs to know how the number came to be?

If you dont know a guys game...and are told his TS%...you still know nothing about how he scores.

You still have to see if hes shooting threes....if hes shooting FTs...

Its a number that tells you nothing...without the data that is used to create it.

So why not just post the data that creates it and skip the middle point of people having to google the guy to see why he shot that TS%?

Just list the numbers that combine to form it....its just more accurate.

Kareems TS is higher than Ray Allens. If I dont know anything about either....dont I still need a lot more information to determine better shooter? If so....why not just direct me to the separate numbers...which is what id go get to decide the matter anyway?




Lillard is shooting 50% on 2 point shots. But his FG% is only 45.4% because he takes a lot of 3s.

Obviously to get the full picture it is best to look at 2 pt point shots, 3 point shots and fts separately. But regardless of whether you want one stat or want to look at them separately there is no reason to look at FG% at all. FG% is worthless.

[ProfessorMurder]

Lillard is shooting 50% on 2 point shots. But his FG% is only 45.4% because he takes a lot of 3s.

Obviously to get the full picture it is best to look at 2 pt point shots, 3 point shots and fts separately. But regardless of whether you want one stat or want to look at them separately there is no reason to look at FG% at all. FG% is worthless.

You can't subtract threes taken from total field goals on your own?

[SexSymbol]

TS% is actually factually the best measurement to measure the player's efficiency if you actually learn about the facts of TS% actual formula.

[tontoz]

:eek:
Who the hell is talking about causation??? If its a good stat it will manifest itself in the greatest players. If eight out of ten of the greatest have much more a relationship to FG% than TS% its not really even close. None of the Top Goats were TS% upper echelons. The most dominant players ever were great in FG%. correlation.

Thus, the mention of Adrian Dantley as the supreme example of efficiency. What excuse are you going to give me now??? Dantley scored much more than Bird and his TS% was much, much better.

Show me your examples.

Shaq and Wilt the two most dominant players ever. Numerous, many, FG% titles between them. Your go.

I already did. Lillard is a perfect example, as are Reggie Miller and Ray Allen.

I want to see the examples of guys who have a high FG% but not high TS among these all time greats. LOL @ using Shaq and Wilt, two notoriously poor foul shooters. Their FG% was identical to their TS so they are outliers anyway.

You seem to be forgetting that there is more to being a great player than just shooting. Any shooting percentage by definition ignores other aspects of the game like rebounding, defense, passing, etc. Shaq and Wilt were both beasts on the boards and on D.

Do you think Dantley was as good on D and on the boards as Wilt and Shaq?

Any shooting percentage also fails to account for scoring volume. Brandan Wright ring a bell? He has a career FG% better than Shaq and Wilt. Does that make him an all time great?

[tontoz]

You can't subtract threes taken from total field goals on your own?


why should we have to do that, then recalculate the percentage, every time we want to compare shooting stats? It makes more sense to just have 2 pointers, 3 pointers and fts as separate percentages.

They are listed separately at basketball reference as they should be.

[Young X]

TS% doesn't combine percentages, it just looks at how many points were scored in relation to how many that would've been scored if all possessions were used correctly.

The player that has the higher TS% made better use of his possessions AKA was more efficient. It's not hard. This doesn't neccessarily mean he's the better scorer because there are other factors that have to be considered such as volume, defensive attention, etc. But just looking at scoring efficiency alone, TS% is the best stat to use.

[Relinquish]

Advanced stats like TS, PER, WS, etc. were only created in order to prop up manufactured "legends" like LeBron and tear down real legends like MJ, Kobe, etc.

They are to be dismissed, ridiculed then ignored by anyone who knows and understands basketball. The same should be done to anyone who uses advanced stats in their arguments.

:kobe:

Advanced stats actually prop up MJ just fine. However, they make Kobe look like the overrated chucker that he is. :lol

[ballinhun8]

OP :bowdown:


Preach my brotha!! Preach!!

[fpliii]

Yikes...

[brooks_thompson]

I just read this entire thread, and it's very telling that the 'old school' side used superior logic and common sense and were able to explain their rationale more clearly due to superior writing skills.

As an econ guy in school and ex-published economist, there was a time when I was fascinated by every number and statistic in the world. As I've aged into my late twenties and my basketball knowledge has grown, I find myself going back to FGM/FGA, etc. I agree with the poster who said that advanced team stats are most useful in a team setting.

[3ball]

The player that has the higher TS% made better use of his possessions AKA was more efficient.


this isn't true.

let me explain real quick: shooting 33% on a three-pointer is equal to shooting 50% on a two-pointer.

so TS% merely accounts for this fact and accordingly weights 3-pointers a little heavier, while also incorporating FT's into the final TS percentage.

so TS% is a player's percentage on ALL the shots they take (3-pointers, 2-pointers and FT's).

players that shoot a material volume of 3-pointers, and shoot them WELL enough (33% or higher compared to a 50% two-point shot), will have higher TS% than a player that didn't attempt many 3-pointers, or had a poor percentage - so TS percentages are definitely propped up higher in today's era due to the emphasis on 3-point shooting.

but TS% doesn't consider how LONG a player held the ball, or the other factors going into a possession, so it certainly doesn't measure who is "using" possessions the best.

[coin24]

Fu*king nerds:facepalm

[tontoz]

this isn't true.

let me explain real quick: shooting 33% on a three-pointer is equal to shooting 50% on a two-pointer.

so TS% merely accounts for this fact and accordingly weights 3-pointers a little heavier, while also incorporating FT's into the final TS percentage.

so TS% is a player's percentage on ALL the shots they take (3-pointers, 2-pointers and FT's).

players that shoot a material volume of 3-pointers, and shoot them WELL enough (33% or higher compared to a 50% two-point shot), will have higher TS% than a player that didn't attempt many 3-pointers, or had a poor percentage - so TS percentages are definitely slanted higher in today's era due to the emphasis on 3-point shooting.

but TS% doesn't consider how LONG a player held the ball, or the other factors going into a possession, so it certainly doesn't measure who is "using" possessions the best.


Huh? No shooting percentage stat considers how long a player held the ball before shooting.

There is a reason why today's era has more emphasis on 3s. Because most guys shoot under 50% from 10 to 22 feet. Other than shots at the rim the 3 point shot is typically the most efficient shot, assuming the player is a competent 3 point shooter.

Looking at 2 point jumpers from 10-22 feet from last season Dirk and Curry, two of the leagues elite shooters, managed to shoot 50% from that range. Most guys are closer to 40%.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/plus/shot_finder.cgi?request=1&player_id=&match=single&year_id=2014&is_playoffs=N&team_id=&opp_id=&game_num_min=0&game_num_max=99&game_month=&game_location=&game_result=&shot_pts=&is_make=&shot_type=&shot_distance_min=10&shot_distance_max=22&q1=Y&q2=Y&q3=Y&q4=Y&q5=Y&time_remain_minutes=12&time_remain_seconds=0&time_remain_comp=le&margin_min=&margin_max=&c1stat=&c1comp=ge&c1val=&c2stat=&c2comp=ge&c2val=&c3stat=&c3comp=ge&c3val=&order_by=fg

Ideally the best shots are at the rim but those shots are also the hardest to get.

[ralph_i_el]

FG% should be retired. You always see FG% alongside 3P%. They should just show 2P% and 3P%

[La Frescobaldi]

FG% means nothing.

If you're against TS% you're a ****ing luddite

Man I love this forum its the daily hilaria

[La Frescobaldi]

Fu*king nerds:facepalm
I know man lol where's Shaq.

He'd listen to it like 30 seconds, just grab a ball in one hand make a fist and smash it flat then ram it down their throat whilst floating off on that genie cloud and displaying a big ol' Kazaam grin

[Milbuck]

TS% doesn't combine percentages, it just looks at how many points were scored in relation to how many that would've been scored if all possessions were used correctly.

The player that has the higher TS% made better use of his possessions AKA was more efficient. It's not hard. This doesn't neccessarily mean he's the better scorer because there are other factors that have to be considered such as volume, defensive attention, etc. But just looking at scoring efficiency alone, TS% is the best stat to use.
This x10.

I don't know why people view this stuff in such a black and white way, as if one stat HAS to be flawless, or else it's utterly meaningless. All these stats, whether raw stats or advanced metrics, have to be used in conjunction with team context (style of play, player roles, etc.) and the eye test. The people who talk shit about TS% are the people who have made some contrived connection between the stat and actual skill level, when it clearly has nothing to do with that. All it does is give you the closest thing to an accurate picture of overall scoring efficiency. Which again, is actually pretty damn valuable if you know how to properly apply it in basketball analysis.

[La Frescobaldi]

I just read this entire thread, and it's very telling that the 'old school' side used superior logic and common sense and were able to explain their rationale more clearly due to superior writing skills.

As an econ guy in school and ex-published economist, there was a time when I was fascinated by every number and statistic in the world. As I've aged into my late twenties and my basketball knowledge has grown, I find myself going back to FGM/FGA, etc. I agree with the poster who said that advanced team stats are most useful in a team setting.

Not to derail the train, but this is from a real old thread where we were talking about Wilt and the 60s - in regards to PER rather than TS - but it still goes to your point.....

Looky here at a old timer point of view.
"Back in the olden days," there was just 3 basic stats; ppg, rpg, and apg. Blocks & steals weren't recognized as a statistic. I'm talking about a long time ago.

PER and all those kinds of great advanced stats are skewed by that fact, so it's valid to compare players BEFORE 1974, or AFTER 1974, but to cross that line is not valid. Really 1979-80 season, when the 3 pointer came to the NBA is another line for comparing guys PER.
I saw Chamberlain block 17 shots against Bob Lanier's Pistons when he was a old-@$$ Laker... saw him block KAJ skyhooks too. But if you look in the books, Wilt never blocked a single shot. All his blocks count for 0. In reality, Chamberlain's PER is jackshite low compared to what it really was.
He had real quick hands too, & got lots of steals. Not Jerry West Walt Frazier Bernard King Joe Dumars Mike hands, but he did get a ton of em. On PER rating that also counts for bumpkus.

Refs from that day have gone on record saying Wilt & Russell undoubtedly had triple doubles seasons if blocks had counted back then.

Well, it used to be we'd just add up the 3 key stats & you had a pretty fair figure for what a guy was doing on the court. Everybody did it. That old method is totally abandoned, possibly because ESPN can't add. But we can, so let's just look real quick.

Shaq 23.7 + 10.9 + 2.5 = 37.1
Dirk 23 + 8.4 + 2.7 = 34.1
KAJ 24.6 + 11.4 + 3.6 = 39.6
Magic 19.5 + 7.2 + 11.2 = 37.9
MJ 30.1 + 6.2 + 5.3 = 41.4
Russell 15.1 + 22.5 + 4.3 = 41.9
Rick Barry 23.2 + 6.5 + 5.1 = 34.8


Wilt 30.1 + 22.9 + 4.4 = 58.4
That's just insane.
*******************************

Me and some of the old guys still use that method, and it's still more accurate than all these advanced fiddleries that have since been devised to confuse.

Not that I disagree at all with the Mighty Ralph_i_el but I'm just sayin ... there's a lot of truth to that simple, infallible method that old Abe Saperstein showed to a bunch of hoops hippies a long long time ago

[LAZERUSS]

Not to derail the train, but this is from a real old thread where we were talking about Wilt and the 60s - in regards to PER rather than TS - but it still goes to your point.....

Looky here at a old timer point of view.
"Back in the olden days," there was just 3 basic stats; ppg, rpg, and apg. Blocks & steals weren't recognized as a statistic. I'm talking about a long time ago.

PER and all those kinds of great advanced stats are skewed by that fact, so it's valid to compare players BEFORE 1974, or AFTER 1974, but to cross that line is not valid. Really 1979-80 season, when the 3 pointer came to the NBA is another line for comparing guys PER.
I saw Chamberlain block 17 shots against Bob Lanier's Pistons when he was a old-@$$ Laker... saw him block KAJ skyhooks too. But if you look in the books, Wilt never blocked a single shot. All his blocks count for 0. In reality, Chamberlain's PER is jackshite low compared to what it really was.
He had real quick hands too, & got lots of steals. Not Jerry West Walt Frazier Bernard King Joe Dumars Mike hands, but he did get a ton of em. On PER rating that also counts for bumpkus.

Refs from that day have gone on record saying Wilt & Russell undoubtedly had triple doubles seasons if blocks had counted back then.

Well, it used to be we'd just add up the 3 key stats & you had a pretty fair figure for what a guy was doing on the court. Everybody did it. That old method is totally abandoned, possibly because ESPN can't add. But we can, so let's just look real quick.

Shaq 23.7 + 10.9 + 2.5 = 37.1
Dirk 23 + 8.4 + 2.7 = 34.1
KAJ 24.6 + 11.4 + 3.6 = 39.6
Magic 19.5 + 7.2 + 11.2 = 37.9
MJ 30.1 + 6.2 + 5.3 = 41.4
Russell 15.1 + 22.5 + 4.3 = 41.9
Rick Barry 23.2 + 6.5 + 5.1 = 34.8


Wilt 30.1 + 22.9 + 4.4 = 58.4
That's just insane.
*******************************

Me and some of the old guys still use that method, and it's still more accurate than all these advanced fiddleries that have since been devised to confuse.

Not that I disagree at all with the Mighty Ralph_i_el but I'm just sayin ... there's a lot of truth to that simple, infallible method that old Abe Saperstein showed to a bunch of hoops hippies a long long time ago

One of the many impressive facts about Wilt was that he was not only the best rebounder on the floor in the vast majority of his games (and even moreso in the post-season when he was unapproachable), but the man was likely blocking at LEAST 8 shots per game in his career. Why is that so impressive? Because the reality was/is, blocked shots tend to REDUCE rebounding numbers. And given the fact that Wilt not only blocked 8+ shots per game, but he likely went for another 8+ every game, as well. One can only speculate, of course, but he clearly LOST some of his potential rebounds every game, and I suspect it was perhaps around 4 per game, by being the greatest shot-blocker (and by a wide margin) of all-time.

[chazzy]

It's not as simple as "I can just look at all 3 %s separately and figure the same thing." Because two players can have the exact %s across the board but one could be significantly more efficient based on the amount of 3s and FTs they took relative to their total shots.

[navy]

It's not as simple as "I can just look at all 3 %s separately and figure the same thing." Because two players can have the exact %s across the board but one could be significantly more efficient based on the amount of 3s and FTs they took relative to their total shots.
That's why you put in attempts as well.

fg%/3p%/ft% with fga/3pa/fta

[Legends66NBA7]

That's why you put in attempts as well.

fg%/3p%/ft% with fga/3pa/fta

I do this too. Keep it simple.

[tontoz]

That's why you put in attempts as well.

2p%/3p%/ft% with 2pa/3pa/fta


fyp

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

Well simply put, there is a higher correlation between TS% and Wins than FG% and wins.

And isn't that what stats are supposed to be? A predictor of wins? This is like using batting average to determine a players value in baseball, even though there are better measures available, such as OPS, WAR, etc.

[Psileas]

fyp

Agreed with the fix. Since 3-pointers already exist as a separate category, what's the value of using a stat that still includes them when you can simply replace it by 2 pointers and avoid needless subtractions? In the rest of the world, there's no such thing as FG% as a basic stat.

[tontoz]

Agreed with the fix. Since 3-pointers already exist as a separate category, what's the value of using a stat that still includes them when you can simply replace it by 2 pointers and avoid needless subtractions? In the rest of the world, there's no such thing as FG% as a basic stat.


Interesting, but not surprising, that the rest of the world has more sense than we do.

[LAZERUSS]

The fallacy of TS%...

e.g.

Tyson Chandler in 2011-12:

.679 FG%
.000 3pt% (0-2)
.689 FT%

.708 TS%


Makes perfect sense to me...

[ralph_i_el]

The fallacy of TS%...

e.g.

Tyson Chandler in 2011-12:

.679 FG%
.000 3pt% (0-2)
.689 FT%

.708 TS%


Makes perfect sense to me...

What about this doesn't make sense to you?

Edit: weird, I did the math and his TS came out to 69.8%

[Round Mound]

FG% is something that does not favor the kobetards...thats why.

[Smoke117]

Can a statistic live rent free in heads? Because it seems to be able to...

[tgan3]

Although TS% is a good measure for a player's efficiency there are still many other factors that can take into place.

Have you ever considered that a 40% 3 point percentage may be worth more than a 60% 2 point percentage? Mathematically a 40% 3 point percentage equates a 60% 2 point percentage...but...

However, 3 points in a single possession is better than 2 points in a single possession because of momentum. Take for example, you bring the ball upcourt then shoot a 3, next play you do the same thing, that's 6 quick points in total. But for a 2 point field goal, you cannot score 6 points in 2 possession unless you got fouled in and hit the and1 for both plays...you only can score 6 points in 3 possessions normally..

[PejaTheSerbSnip]

:applause: :applause: :applause:


This x10.

I don't know why people view this stuff in such a black and white way, as if one stat HAS to be flawless, or else it's utterly meaningless. All these stats, whether raw stats or advanced metrics, have to be used in conjunction with team context (style of play, player roles, etc.) and the eye test. The people who talk shit about TS% are the people who have made some contrived connection between the stat and actual skill level, when it clearly has nothing to do with that. All it does is give you the closest thing to an accurate picture of overall scoring efficiency. Which again, is actually pretty damn valuable if you know how to properly apply it in basketball analysis.

[LAZERUSS]

What about this doesn't make sense to you?

Edit: weird, I did the math and his TS came out to 69.8%

What about it makes ANY sense to you?

Geezus.

Completely throw out his 0-2 from the acr.

The man made .679 of his 2pt FG% attempts.

The man made .689 from the FT line.

And that comes out to .708 ?

If a place kicker makes 2/3 from the right side of the hash, and 2/3 from the left...does that come out to a .750 FG%?

If a player has a 50% FG% and a 50% FT%, does he shoot .600 overall?

If anything, Chandler's FG% should be somewhere in BETWEEN .679 and .689...and NOT EXCEEDING the higher of the two percentages.

I can understand the complexity that a 3pt shots adds, but in Chandlers' case, it doesn't come into play at all.

Just another stat where a computer nerd arbitrarily throws up a random .44 number and hopes that no one notices just how ridiculous it is.

[LAZERUSS]

The fallacy of TS%...

e.g.

Tyson Chandler in 2011-12:

.679 FG%
.000 3pt% (0-2)
.689 FT%

.708 TS%


Makes perfect sense to me...

BTW, and for those that are interested...
here is Chandler's ACTUAL TRUE shooting percentage in 2011-12:

He went 241-355 in TOTAL FGAs, but included in that was 0-2 from the arc. Normally we would have to separate the two (i.e.... 241-353 on 2pt FGAs and then 0-2 on 3pt FGAs), but a missed 3pt attempt counts the same as missed 2pt attempt, and since he didn't make any, it makes zero difference.

But I will break it down anyway:

A 2pt FGA counts as 2.
A 2pt FGM counts as 2.
A 3pt FGA counts as 2
A 3pt FGM counts as 3.
A FTA counts as 1.
A FTM counts as 1.

Chandler's totals:

2pt FGA= 353 or 706
2pt FGM= 241 or 482
3pt FGA= 2 or 4
3pt FGM= 0 or 0
FTA= 315
FTM= 217

Total SHOT attempts= 706+4+315= 1025
Total MADE attempst= 482+0+217= 699

699/1025= .682 or a TRUE TS% of .682.

Simple enough.

And of course it makes MUCH more sense than his ACTUAL TS% of .708 .

[riseagainst]

What about it makes ANY sense to you?

Geezus.

Completely throw out his 0-2 from the acr.

The man made .679 of his 2pt FG% attempts.

The man made .689 from the FT line.

And that comes out to .708 ?

If a place kicker makes 2/3 from the right side of the hash, and 2/3 from the left...does that come out to a .750 FG%?

If a player has a 50% FG% and a 50% FT%, does he shoot .600 overall?

If anything, Chandler's FG% should be somewhere in BETWEEN .679 and .689...and NOT EXCEEDING the higher of the two percentages.

I can understand the complexity that a 3pt shots adds, but in Chandlers' case, it doesn't come into play at all.

Just another stat where a computer nerd arbitrarily throws up a random .44 number and hopes that no one notices just how ridiculous it is.


.44 is not an arbitrary number......

[LAZERUSS]

Second issue with standardized TS%...

It CAN'T be compared across era's.

The ONLY shooting statistic that can be compared across era's is FT%.

[LAZERUSS]

.44 is not an arbitrary number......

YES it is. It is NOT a possession stat. Never has been.

[eklip]

The fallacy of TS%...

e.g.

Tyson Chandler in 2011-12:

.679 FG%
.000 3pt% (0-2)
.689 FT%

.708 TS%


Makes perfect sense to me...
There are And-ones. He didn't use up extra possessions to score more points -> makes him more efficient.

[LAZERUSS]

There are And-ones. He didn't use up extra possessions to score more points -> makes him more efficient.


That is a POSSESSION stat that is not truly measurable by .44.

TRUE SHOOTING is TRUE SHOOTING.

There are also TECHNICAL FTAs as well.

Again...not a truly measureable possession stat.

Unless someone is actually measuring EVERY "and-one" and EVERY technical FT for EVERY player... it is an ARBITRARY stat.

[tontoz]

That is a POSSESSION stat that is not truly measurable by .44.

TRUE SHOOTING is TRUE SHOOTING.

There are also TECHNICAL FTAs as well.

Again...not a truly measureable possession stat.


How do you account for an And1?

[LAZERUSS]

How do you account for an And1?

Show me where Chandler's "and-one's" were measured. Or his technical FTAs.

[LAZERUSS]

How do you account for an And1?

BTW, Chamberlain and Shaq are THE TWO greatest ever in that category (albeit, I have never seen their actual numbers.)

Furthermore, in Wilt's era, there were different FTA scenarios, such as 3-to-make-2, or 2-to-make-1, or even single FTAs on none shooting fouls.

BTW, Wilt's EFFECTIVE FT% was considerably higher than his ACTUAL FT%. As was his EFFECTIVE TS%.

[tontoz]

Show me where Chandler's "and-one's" were measured. Or his technical FTAs.


It is pretty much a given that Chandler won't be shooting techs.

But we can also assume that some of his made free throws were and1s. in your math on the previous page it seems you are completely ignoring the posibility that he made any and1s.

So i ask again, how do you account for and1s? Or do you think he went the entire season without one?

[LAZERUSS]

It is pretty much a given that Chandler won't be shooting techs.

But we can also assume that some of his made free throws were and1s. in your math on the previous page it seems you are completely ignoring the posibility that he made any and1s.

So i ask again, how do you account for and1s? Or do you think he went the entire season without one?

BUT, what you are claiming is an EXACT TS%. Unless we KNOW, it is not measureable.

Some players obviously have far more "and-one's" than other's. Do we KNOW Wilt's and Shaq's? Yet, their TS%'s are lumped in with the same ARBITRARY .44 number as everyone else.

Same with the better FT shooters. Some of them probably take far more technical FTs during the season...yet, they are lumped in with everyone else.

[eklip]

That is a POSSESSION stat that is not truly measurable by .44.

TRUE SHOOTING is TRUE SHOOTING.

There are also TECHNICAL FTAs as well.

Again...not a truly measureable possession stat.
"True shooting" is just a name for the stat.

The stat isn't perfect, but it's close to being perfect. The margin of error is really neglectable. It's definitely not a reason not to use it.

[ralph_i_el]

BTW, and for those that are interested...
here is Chandler's ACTUAL TRUE shooting percentage in 2011-12:

He went 241-355 in TOTAL FGAs, but included in that was 0-2 from the arc. Normally we would have to separate the two (i.e.... 241-353 on 2pt FGAs and then 0-2 on 3pt FGAs), but a missed 3pt attempt counts the same as missed 2pt attempt, and since he didn't make any, it makes zero difference.

But I will break it down anyway:

A 2pt FGA counts as 2.
A 2pt FGM counts as 2.
A 3pt FGA counts as 2
A 3pt FGM counts as 3.
A FTA counts as 1.
A FTM counts as 1.

Chandler's totals:

2pt FGA= 353 or 706
2pt FGM= 241 or 482
3pt FGA= 2 or 4
3pt FGM= 0 or 0
FTA= 315
FTM= 217

Total SHOT attempts= 706+4+315= 1025
Total MADE attempst= 482+0+217= 699

699/1025= .682 or a TRUE TS% of .682.

Simple enough.

And of course it makes MUCH more sense than his ACTUAL TS% of .708 .

I ran tyson's stats through the true shooting formula and didn't get .708 which confused me too. Perhaps the .708 is accounting for times when he had and-1's? not all of his FT attempts used another possession. That could account for the 1% difference.

[LAZERUSS]

I ran tyson's stats through the true shooting formula and didn't get .708 which confused me too. Perhaps the .708 is accounting for times when he had and-1's? not all of his FT attempts used another possession. That could account for the 1% difference.

I have never seen a stat which separates "and-1's", or technical FTAs. If it exists, then perhaps his TS% is correct.

But, do we have those from the players of the 60's, 70's, and 80's, as well? And again, I believe in 1982, the FTAs were changed. No more 3-to-make-2's, or single FTAs on none-shooting fouls (before five fouls.)

[tontoz]

BUT, what you are claiming is an EXACT TS%. Unless we KNOW, it is not measureable.

Some players obviously have far more "and-one's" than other's. Do we KNOW Wilt's and Shaq's? Yet, their TS%'s are lumped in with the same ARBITRARY .44 number as everyone else.

Same with the better FT shooters. Some of them probably take far more technical FTs during the season...yet, they are lumped in with everyone else.


Who is claiming an exact TS? The only way that would be possible is if the techs and and1s were measured for every player and then calculated into their number. That isnt practical so they just estimated it.

Your way is pretty much a lock to be way off, especially for better foul shooters who get to the line a lot.

[LAZERUSS]

"True shooting" is just a name for the stat.

The stat isn't perfect, but it's close to being perfect. The margin of error is really neglectable. It's definitely not a reason not to use it.

I have seen those here who have tried to disparage Wilt's efficiency based on his poor FT shooting, and then using a TS% against him. The reality was, we simply don't know how many "and-1's" he had (but he likely had MANY...same with Shaq.) And furthermore, the FTAs at the time, surely had him with a higher EFFECTIVE FT% (and thereby a higher TS% as well), than his ACTUAL FT% (and actual TS%.)

NOR does Wilt's FT% take into account the FACT that his team's almost always shot FAR more FTAs than their opposition. Why? Because of Wilt's IMPACT at the line. Because of Chamberlain, his teammates were getting into the bonus much sooner, and more often..resulting in more attempts. Not to mention that opposing players were in foul trouble sooner, and either were playing a lessor defense, or were on the bench.

[gts]

We need a new statistic that doesn't count dunks and layups as shooting.

Brandan wright "shoots" something like 70% but we all know he can't shoot a j if his live depended on it.

why, because taking high percentage shots is a bad thing?

besides they already have it, it's called a shot chart

[LAZERUSS]

BTW, a missed "and-1" LOWERS TS%. Players like Shaq and Wilt were "punished" in their TS%'s.

[gts]

BTW, a missed "and-1" LOWERS TS%. Players like Shaq and Wilt were "punished" in their TS%'s.They're not "punished" because they miss those shots

The stat is giving you exactly what it was meant to give

[Pointguard]

I already did. Lillard is a perfect example, as are Reggie Miller and Ray Allen.
These are not examples of GOATs at all. Lillard, really.

I want to see the examples of guys who have a high FG% but not high TS among these all time greats. LOL @ using Shaq and Wilt, two notoriously poor foul shooters. Their FG% was identical to their TS so they are outliers anyway.
I got LoL ed at for using the two most dominant players in history to prove the value of a stat. They were the most feared because they were incredible in making shots. In the top ten of GOATS. 70% of them were ranked upper echelon in fg% at their positions. My guess is 70% or higher were never upper Echelon in TS%. One definitely has a closer relationship. And the one TS person can definitely be considered the outlier.


You seem to be forgetting that there is more to being a great player than just shooting. Any shooting percentage by definition ignores other aspects of the game like rebounding, defense, passing, etc. Shaq and Wilt were both beasts on the boards and on D. nope, I'm only considering offense.


Do you think Dantley was as good on D and on the boards as Wilt and Shaq?
There were plenty of threads here about best offensive players here and I'm one of the few bringing up Dantley. And I don't bring up TS%.


Any shooting percentage also fails to account for scoring volume. Brandan Wright ring a bell? He has a career FG% better than Shaq and Wilt. Dantley as a pure scorer vs Gervin as a pure scorer. Both stayed around 30ppg and were primarily scoring. Most great scorers were ranked higher in FG% league wide than TS% which is probably related to the fact that more aggressive players lose their free throw shooting and three point touch as the game goes on.

TS% players are usually less aggressive players. And they usually don't play defense - save Stockton. Lebron played much better defense when his TS% was a 50% points lower. Could be coincidence. High TSers are usually efficient over aggressive type players. You need both type of players but the aggressors are almost always the leaders and dictate how the game is played - see OKC.

[LAZERUSS]

These are not examples of GOATs at all. Lillard, really.
I got LoL ed at for using the two most dominant players in history to prove the value of a stat. They were the most feared because they were incredible in making shots. In the top ten of GOATS. 70% of them were ranked upper echelon in fg% at their positions. My guess is 70% or higher were never upper Echelon in TS%. One definitely has a closer relationship. And the one TS person can definitely be considered the outlier.
nope, I'm only considering offense.

There were plenty of threads here about best offensive players here and I'm one of the few bringing up Dantley. And I don't bring up TS%.
Dantley as a pure scorer vs Gervin as a pure scorer. Both stayed around 30ppg and were primarily scoring. Most great scorers were ranked higher in FG% league wide than TS% which is probably related to the fact that more aggressive players lose their free throw shooting and three point touch as the game goes on.

TS% players are usually less aggressive players. And they usually don't play defense - save Stockton. Lebron played much better defense when his TS% was a 50% points lower. Could be coincidence. High TSers are usually efficient over aggressive type players. You need both type of players but the aggressors are almost always the leaders and dictate how the game is played - see OKC.

:applause: :applause: :applause:

:cheers:

[tontoz]

They were the most feared because they were incredible in making shots. In the top ten of GOATS. 70% of them were ranked upper echelon in fg% at their positions. My guess is 70% or higher were never upper Echelon in TS%. One definitely has a closer relationship. And the one TS person can definitely be considered the outlier.
nope, I'm only considering offense.

.


This is one of the dumbest arguments i have ever seen on this site. Congrats! :bowdown:

Shaq and Wilt were feared because of their size/strength/skill, not because of their FG%. You simply don't have the mental capacity to understand that correlation does not equal causation.

Look at the FG% leaders right now. Brandan Wright is at the top. Is anyone afraid of him?

:facepalm

If you had a brain that actually worked you would realize that the top guys in FG% are generally big men who rarely shoot from outside. Big men who physically dominate their opponents also have the biggest impact on a teams defense which of course has no relevance to FG%. A top big man is more valuable than a top small man. Basketball 101

FG% is a measure of shooting, and a lousy outdated one at that. Trying to claim that it is somehow a defining characteristic of all time greats is simply moronic. There is a lot more to being a great player than just shooting from the field.

[chazzy]

People get hung up on the whole .44 thing, but even when you change it to .5 it's a very minute change over the course of a season. It's used in an attempt to account for FTs that don't use possessions, but ultimately it doesn't change too much

[Pointguard]

This is one of the dumbest arguments i have ever seen on this site. Congrats! :bowdown:

Shaq and Wilt were feared because of their size/strength/skill, not because of their FG%. You simply don't have the mental capacity to understand that correlation does not equal causation. Here's a lesson your parents never got to you: If you are going to be stupid at least be kind that way people might be able to tell what comes out your face is different than what comes out your behind.

You quoted me but weren't smart enough to understand the quote. I said "They were feared because of their incredible ability to make shots." Do you realize how much you imagined in your response above??? And you are showing mega failed arrogance on top of it.

And stop using words you don't understand. Correlation is in the manifestation: If its not in the Greats then why correlate.


Look at the FG% leaders right now. Brandan Wright is at the top. Is anyone afraid of him?

:facepalm
I never said it was comprehensive. PER measures production and strange folk pop up there as well.


If you had a brain that actually worked you would realize that the top guys in FG% are generally big men who rarely shoot from outside. Big men who physically dominate their opponents also have the biggest impact on a teams defense which of course has no relevance to FG%. A top big man is more valuable than a top small man. Basketball 101

FG% is a measure of shooting, and a lousy outdated one at that. Trying to claim that it is somehow a defining characteristic of all time greats is simply moronic. There is a lot more to being a great player than just shooting from the field.
Its simple then.... show us the value of TS % over FG% using GOATS. It has to have a practical manifestation in the best or its a stat that you are imagining has value. I don't mean to frustrate you but your deflating ego has been dancing around this long enough.

[tontoz]

Its simple then.... show us the value of TS % over FG% using GOATS. It has to have a practical manifestation in the best or its a stat that you are imagining has value. I don't mean to frustrate you but your deflating ego has been dancing around this long enough.


There is your problem right there and you can't see it. Shooting stats are meant to measure shooting for ALL PLAYERS, GOOD AND BAD.

This GOAT crap is irrelevant nonsense.

Look at the top 10 in FG% right now. All are bigs.TS benefits smaller players who can hit 3s and free throws. It isn't that hard to grasp.

And when people make their lost of GOAT players they aren't going to be mentioning any 6'3" guys in the top 5.

SHOOTING STATS AREN'T MEANT TO MEASURE WHO THE GOAT's ARE. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR GRANITE SKULL. THEY ARE ONLY MEANT TO MEASURE SHOOTING, FOR ALL PLAYERS NOT JUST THE GOATS.

Shooting stats should be judged solely on how accurately they measure shooting. FG is the worst stat available at measuring shooting.

[Pointguard]

There is your problem right there and you can't see it. Shooting stats are meant to measure shooting for ALL PLAYERS, GOOD AND BAD.

This GOAT crap is irrelevant nonsense.

Look at the top 10 in FG% right now. All are bigs.TS benefits smaller players who can hit 3s and free throws. It isn't that hard to grasp.

And when people make their lost of GOAT players they aren't going to be mentioning any 6'3" guys in the top 5.

SHOOTING STATS AREN'T MEANT TO MEASURE WHO THE GOAT's ARE. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR GRANITE SKULL. THEY ARE ONLY MEANT TO MEASURE SHOOTING, FOR ALL PLAYERS NOT JUST THE GOATS.

Shooting stats should be judged solely on how accurately they measure shooting. FG is the worst stat available at measuring shooting.
:lol all stats are a measure. Get over yourself.

If its worth something it will be manifest in greatness. If its a stat of great value its going to show itself like scoring, rebounding, assist, fg%, per, drg, ortg do with the best. Its more of a second rate stat.

When I asked why did Magic TS better than Bird your brilliant mind said because he took less shots. :lol TS% can cloud otherwise discernable elements in the game because it lumps together different features/aspects of the game.

[Young X]

:lol all stats are a measure. Get over yourself.

If its worth something it will be manifest in greatness. If its a stat of great value its going to show itself like scoring, rebounding, assist, fg%, per, drg, ortg do with the best. Its more of a second rate stat.

When I asked why did Magic TS better than Bird your brilliant mind said because he took less shots. :lol TS% can cloud otherwise discernable elements in the game because it lumps together different features/aspects of the game.What different elements of the game does it "lump together"? All it tells you is how many points were scored compared to how many scoring possessions were used. It's that simple.

[tontoz]

:lol all stats are a measure. Get over yourself.

If its worth something it will be manifest in greatness. If its a stat of great value its going to show itself like scoring, rebounding, assist, fg%, per, drg, ortg do with the best. Its more of a second rate stat.

When I asked why did Magic TS better than Bird your brilliant mind said because he took less shots. :lol TS% can cloud otherwise discernable elements in the game because it lumps together different features/aspects of the game.

You still dont get it. Not surprised. If you don't understand that it is easier to maintain a higher TS taking fewer shots then i dont even know what to say.

I think i know the source of your confusion regarding FG%. I will try to make this simple enough for you to understand. I am not sure if it is within my abilities but i will try.

The most efficient shots in basketball are at the rim. Good players typically shoot 60%+ at the rim and that isn't even taking into account all the trips to the foul line. Those shots are also the most heavily defended.

GOAT players are frequently the best getting to the rim and finishing. Shaq/Wilt did it primarily with size/athleticism although i think Shaq's skills were underrated.

Jordan and Lebron were probably the best at their respective positions at getting to the rim and finishing. That increases their FG% and makes fools like you think it is a worthwhile stat.

The problem is that FG% isn't meant to identify GOAT players. It is only trying to accurately measure a players shooting from the field. It does a poor job of this as can clearly be seen below:

Player A scores 20 ppg shooting 45% from the field. No 3 attempts.

Player B scores 20 ppg shooting 45% from the field, taking 6 treys a game at 40%.

These two players have the exact same FG% yet player B is a far better shooter than player A. That is why FG% is worthless. Player A is shooting only 45% on 2 point shots. Player B is probably shooting roughly 50% on 2 point shots.

I am sure you are thinking that you can look at FG% and 3pt% separately. But you really can't since 3 pt attempts are counted both in FG% and in 3 pt %.

In order to really look at everything separately you have to look at 2pt%, 3pt% and ft%. Another option is to look at EFG% and FT% if you don't like TS.

But FG% is a crap stat.