What is the best single stat ?

[BigTicket]

Something I have been wonder, with all the stats going around, which one is actually the most reliable. In other words, if you had to use only one single stat to rank players, which one would come closest to an accurate ranking ?

So I pose this as a challenge to everyone, go to which ever stat site you like, and post a link to the stat that you think creates the most accurate ranking.

For alltime rankings, I'll go with the MVP award shares stat they have on basketball-reference.com

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/mvp_shares.html

The top 10 is almost correct, with 9 out of 10 players usually making top 10 lists, and Jordan on top. The only outlier is Karl Malone who made the top 10, but that's not too bad, considering that most people would probably have him in the top 20.

For current season rankings, I haven't found any stat that works as well, the best is probably ESPN's value added stat:

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/statistics/_/sort/VORP

The only problem with this stat, is that it requires you to actually play, so players who get injured will be left out, even if they are among the best.

[TommyGriffin]

Well coming from a huge New Orleans fan but also a lifelong Cavaliers fan as well I would have to say winning a championship for your home team. You can have the most points, rebounds, assists, blocks, steals, PER, ORTG, DRTG every RTG there is but as long as Cleveland doesn't have a championship we are shit out of luck.

[BigTicket]

Well coming from a huge New Orleans fan but also a lifelong Cavaliers fan as well I would have to say winning a championship for your home team. You can have the most points, rebounds, assists, blocks, steals, PER, ORTG, DRTG every RTG there is but as long as Cleveland doesn't have a championship we are shit out of luck.

Championships won is a good way to rank franchises, but it doesn't work as a stat for ranking players.

Here is the top 10 all-time in championships won:

#1 - Bill Russell - 11
#2 - Sam Jones - 10
#3 - John Havlicek - 8
Tom Heinsohn - 8
K.C. Jones - 8
Tom Sanders - 8
#7 - Robert Horry - 7
Frank Ramsey - 7
#9 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar - 6
Bob Cousy - 6
Michael Jordan - 6
Jim Loscutoff - 6
Scottie Pippen - 6

Half the people on that list are roleplayers that most people have never even heard off.

[Odinn]

MVP award shares not the best number out there to pick. The voting system changed sooo many times. For instance, in Kareem's day, people voted for 1 name only. You were the MVP or not. There were no points for 2nd and 3rd places, because they were non-existent.

If you want to use MVP votings in a healthy context, you need to rely on 1st place votes. There's no other way for it.

[dunksby]

MVP award shares best number out there to pick. The voting system changed sooo many times. For instance, in Kareem's day, people voted for 1 name only. You were the MVP or not. There were no points for 2nd and 3rd places, because they were non-existent.

If you want to use MVP votings in a healthy context, you need to rely on 1st place votes. There's no other way for it.
Also Kareem got all of them when the award was voted by the players.

[dhsilv]

Something I have been wonder, with all the stats going around, which one is actually the most reliable. In other words, if you had to use only one single stat to rank players, which one would come closest to an accurate ranking ?

So I pose this as a challenge to everyone, go to which ever stat site you like, and post a link to the stat that you think creates the most accurate ranking.

For alltime rankings, I'll go with the MVP award shares stat they have on basketball-reference.com

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/mvp_shares.html

The top 10 is almost correct, with 9 out of 10 players usually making top 10 lists, and Jordan on top. The only outlier is Karl Malone who made the top 10, but that's not too bad, considering that most people would probably have him in the top 20.

For current season rankings, I haven't found any stat that works as well, the best is probably ESPN's value added stat:

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/statistics/_/sort/VORP

The only problem with this stat, is that it requires you to actually play, so players who get injured will be left out, even if they are among the best.

MVP voting might work for a top 10, but it's crap beyond that. Are you going to use it to compare Glenn Rice and Mitch Richmond?

VA is just total crap imo. It is imo one of the worst all in one stats we have. For starters it adjusts for possition which we all know is a meaningless thing in the nba. I'm nearly possitive if john were still at espn he'd have changed that one, hell if you look back into the past the stat isn't even calculated teh same way all years on espn.

WS is better. VORP is better (all be it we only have it going back to 74). PIE from nba.com is better.

If you don't need historical context, ESPN's WIN or WINS or whatever they're calling it from the real plus data is better.

All that said the 1 stat movement is pretty much done. Sports Vue data is creating stats and tool to judge role impact and valuing players at their roles is where real value and predictive power (the reason for the stats in the first place) comes from. From there we need to start thinking about how a team is constructed in terms of play roles.

[kennethgriffin]

The best single stat is # of rings by mvp winners

(Pre merger rings counting as half )

[K Xerxes]

List of fmvp winners?

Russell (estimated >6)
Jordan (6)
Magic/Duncan/Shaq (3)
Kareem/Bird/Hakeem/Kobe/LeBron/Reed (2)
+Wilt (estimated 2)

Aside from Reed, thats the consensus top 11.

[dhsilv]

List of fmvp winners?

Russell (estimated >6)
Jordan (6)
Magic/Duncan/Shaq (3)
Kareem/Bird/Hakeem/Kobe/LeBron/Reed (2)
+Wilt (estimated 2)

Aside from Reed, thats the consensus top 11.

No west, no moses, no Oscar...hardly consensus top 11. And how you round out the top 100?

[TaLvsCuaL]

a single stat means nothing, even MVP or FMVP

[pauk]

Mvp win shares and per.

[Stout]

Win shares?

[Jasper]

Championships won is a good way to rank franchises, but it doesn't work as a stat for ranking players.

Here is the top 10 all-time in championships won:

#1 - Bill Russell - 11
#2 - Sam Jones - 10
#3 - John Havlicek - 8
Tom Heinsohn - 8
K.C. Jones - 8
Tom Sanders - 8
#7 - Robert Horry - 7
Frank Ramsey - 7
#9 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar - 6
Bob Cousy - 6
Michael Jordan - 6
Jim Loscutoff - 6
Scottie Pippen - 6

Half the people on that list are roleplayers that most people have never even heard off.
Very good point.

As for a player , I always look at FIELD GOAL PERCENTAGE , because this is an offensive game.
THEN I look at free throw percentage , because if he hits the line alot , it tells us how he plays !!

[Nash]

Accolades:

1.FMVP - Basically you're doing it against the best at the most important stage.
2.MVP - Greatness over a full year

Stats:
1. FG% - How easy does the game come to you?
2. PER - For obvious reasons
3 +/- - Not something people value that much, especially in single games. But over a full season? It gives you a great look into how well you're doing.

[Lakers Fan]

Half the people on that list are roleplayers that most people have never even heard off.

Most people wouldn't recognize the name of anyone not named Jordan, Kobe, Shaq and LeBron. But anyone who knows anything about basketball should instantly recognize all but maybe 3 names

[feyki]

Plus minus and offensive and defensive total impacts in my calculations .

[riseagainst]

best single stat is the most points you scored in a single game.

[Dr Hawk]

best single stat is the most points you scored in a single game.

What if you score 20 and you let your man score 21?

[WayOfWade]

I would have to say between PPG and PER. PPG because the name of the game is winning, and to win you need to score; however there are many bad players who put up great PPG, it's highly flawed. PER I love; I know a lot of people hate it, but PER follows greatness (to some extent), the top 5 all time are Jordan, James, Shaq, Robinson, and Chamberlain. It's not perfect, but almost all the players with high PER are great today or all-time

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/per_career.html

[SouBeachTalents]

The best single stat is # of rings by mvp winners

(Pre merger rings counting as half )

Aka the best possible way to prop up Kobe

[SexSymbol]

points per game

[AirBonner]

Team Defensive rating. The pistons proved this in the 2000's as did the Warriors last year.

[sd3035]

1. ppg

2. PER and TS%

[swagga]

rapes per career.

[AirBonner]

rapes per career.
Kobe wins /thread

[ISHGoat]

Playoff ws48 for players that qualify.

Mvp-shares

[ShawkFactory]

Aka the best possible way to prop up Kobe
No shit..

[Bay Area Baller]

Best stat Win percentage

[LoneyROY7]

Accolades:

1.FMVP - Basically you're doing it against the best at the most important stage.
2.MVP - Greatness over a full year

Stats:
1. FG% - How easy does the game come to you?
2. PER - For obvious reasons
3 +/- - Not something people value that much, especially in single games. But over a full season? It gives you a great look into how well you're doing.

Spoken like a true pauk.

[La Frescobaldi]

Something I have been wonder, with all the stats going around, which one is actually the most reliable. In other words, if you had to use only one single stat to rank players, which one would come closest to an accurate ranking ?

So I pose this as a challenge to everyone, go to which ever stat site you like, and post a link to the stat that you think creates the most accurate ranking.

For alltime rankings, I'll go with the MVP award shares stat they have on basketball-reference.com

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/mvp_shares.html

The top 10 is almost correct, with 9 out of 10 players usually making top 10 lists, and Jordan on top. The only outlier is Karl Malone who made the top 10, but that's not too bad, considering that most people would probably have him in the top 20.

For current season rankings, I haven't found any stat that works as well, the best is probably ESPN's value added stat:

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/statistics/_/sort/VORP

The only problem with this stat, is that it requires you to actually play, so players who get injured will be left out, even if they are among the best.
.... from an old thread originally like maybe 2011 or something. Lot older than that. sitting in bleachers lol

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.

.... 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

[ClipperRevival]

.... from an old thread originally like maybe 2011 or something. Lot older than that. sitting in bleachers lol

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.

.... 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

How do you explain Elgin Baylor being the 10th best rebounder ever at 13.5 per game? That's noticeably higher than Shaq, Hakeem or KAJ. Was he a greater rebounder than them? Those 3 old school stats obviously matter but without proper context, they can be misleading.

[La Frescobaldi]

How do you explain Elgin Baylor being the 10th best rebounder ever at 13.5 per game? That's noticeably higher than Shaq, Hakeem or KAJ. Was he a greater rebounder than them? Those 3 old school stats obviously matter but without proper context, they can be misleading.

actually............. he probably was. he certainly could position relative to the ball better than any of those. difficult to say since he played in a league with entirely different levels of FG%

but see, first off you chose 3 guys not especially.... elite... at rebounding. notice Kareem only led the league once in rebounding - a fact that was probably kinda overrated by some of his detractors who used it to say he didn't push himself.... but still had some merit really. Shaq never led the league nor was he ever a top-flight rebounder. Why did the vastly overrated Olajuwon only lead the league during the Bad Boy Pistons era? Moses Malone had declined, Rodman had not yet met Phil Jackson... there was a tiny window there.
Baylor is not alone, either. Garnett was always a greater rebounder than any of those.

Second off all, i certainly agree any single stat can be misleading, especially when we are comparing across eras; which is specifically why I don't do it. Using one stat is precisely what this method avoids, yet you just fell into it anyhow.

Over time, the 3 added-up stats is still the least misleading of all I've found.

[tontoz]

Very good point.

As for a player , I always look at FIELD GOAL PERCENTAGE , because this is an offensive game.
THEN I look at free throw percentage , because if he hits the line alot , it tells us how he plays !!


FG% is garbage for any player that shoots 3s. Even if he shoots 3s well his FG% will most likely go down.

This year Curry is shooting 57.9% on 2s but he shoots so many 3s that his FG% drops to 50.7%.

[dhsilv]

.... from an old thread originally like maybe 2011 or something. Lot older than that. sitting in bleachers lol

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.

.... 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

You do know the PER posted on sites like basketball reference uses a different formula for players prior to 74 to account for the missing data, right? Sure it's not perfect, but it isn't like they took PER and just plugged in a 0 for steals and blocks.

[dhsilv]

actually............. he probably was. he certainly could position relative to the ball better than any of those. difficult to say since he played in a league with entirely different levels of FG%

but see, first off you chose 3 guys not especially.... elite... at rebounding. notice Kareem only led the league once in rebounding - a fact that was probably kinda overrated by some of his detractors who used it to say he didn't push himself.... but still had some merit really. Shaq never led the league nor was he ever a top-flight rebounder. Why did the vastly overrated Olajuwon only lead the league during the Bad Boy Pistons era? Moses Malone had declined, Rodman had not yet met Phil Jackson... there was a tiny window there.
Baylor is not alone, either. Garnett was always a greater rebounder than any of those.

Second off all, i certainly agree any single stat can be misleading, especially when we are comparing across eras; which is specifically why I don't do it. Using one stat is precisely what this method avoids, yet you just fell into it anyhow.

Over time, the 3 added-up stats is still the least misleading of all I've found.

Per game stats are without a doubt TERRIBLE when you're trying to look at different eras, they're BAD (REALLY BAD) even comparing players the same year.

Baylor is an interesting example actually. Lets take the 60-61 lakers who had a pace of 124.9 and well compare him to Tim Duncan's 03 season.

34.8 ppg
19.8 TRB
5.1 AST
42.9 mpg (used later)

Duncan

23.3 ppg
12.9 TRB
3.9 AST

Looking at these stats it's pretty hard to not favor Baylor. However the spurs pace was 90 that year.

We have per 100 duncan stats

31.6 17.5 5.3

But we don't have baylor's.

We do however know team pace and his percentage of minutes played

124.9*(42.9/48)=111.63

34.8 / 1.1163= 31.17
19.8 / 1.1163= 17.74
5.1 / 1.1163= 4.57

So just adjusting for a single issue (pace of play) we see a dramatic change in the raw per game stats to our per 100 stats.

We still haven't looked at efficiency and we have ZERO insight into their defense.

[feyki]

1956-1963 Reb Chances (a game) - 135-140

1998-2012 Reb Chances - 90-95

[tontoz]

1956-1963 Reb Chances (a game) - 135-140

1998-2012 Reb Chances - 90-95


Yeah shooting percentages were a joke back in the old days.

[tmacattack33]

That MVP win shares list actually looks very good. Except for Olajuwon...I guess Houston was never near the top of the standings so he never got many votes.

You'd be hardpressed to go find a better stat where the top 20 in that stat actually lines up very well with most people's top 20 GOAT lists.



And PER would probably the best numerical stat out there. It just combines everything.

[DMV2]

As far as PPG vs FG% goes, PPG >>>> and it's not even close.

That's why we have scoring titles, not FG% titles.

[34-24 Footwork]

As far as PPG vs FG% goes, PPG >>>> and it's not even close.

That's why we have scoring titles, not FG% titles.

Yeah. It's crazy. I've never seen FG% used in daily conversation so much until I started reading about basketball on the internet. When you're out there playing organized ball or pickup, no one is talking about FG% :lol

[feyki]

Yeah shooting percentages were a joke back in the old days.


Yes , no handcheking ban , no illegal d , no protections to offensive players . Defence was toughest .

[tontoz]

As far as PPG vs FG% goes, PPG >>>> and it's not even close.

That's why we have scoring titles, not FG% titles.


People with high ppg and weak efficiency are routinely overrated. FG% is a crap stat anyway.

EFG% or TS% >>>>>FG%

The team with the highest scoring efficiency is going to win the game the vast majority of the time. Sometimes a team can win with lower efficiency by winning the rebounding/turnover battle but in general efficient scoring wins.

[Mass Debator]

FGM

And that's the only answer.

[ClipperRevival]

People with high ppg and weak efficiency are routinely overrated. FG% is a crap stat anyway.

EFG% or TS% >>>>>FG%

The team with the highest scoring efficiency is going to win the game the vast majority of the time. Sometimes a team can win with lower efficiency by winning the rebounding/turnover battle but in general efficient scoring wins.

TS% isn't a great stat. Look at the all-time leaders. Little correlation to the all-time best players. It favors either (1) very high pct shooting bigs who took minimal shot attempts, (2) shooters or (3) efficient post up players.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ts_pct_career.html

If I had to pick just one stat, I would go with PER. Much better correlation with all-time greats. Sure, there is a oddity or two but this holds for the most part.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/per_career.html

[tontoz]

TS% isn't a great stat. Look at the all-time leaders. Little correlation to the all-time best players. It favors either (1) very high pct shooting bigs who took minimal shot attempts, (2) shooters or (3) efficient post up players.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ts_pct_career.html

If I had to pick just one stat, I would go with PER. Much better correlation with all-time greats. Sure, there is a oddity or two but this holds for the most part.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/per_career.html


TS isn't trying to measure who is a great player. It is only trying to measure scoring efficiency and does so far better than FG%.

PER overvalues inefficient scoring. If you take more shots then your PER will go up even if you are shooting in the low 30% range. Not sure what the exact cutoff is for shooting percentage.

[ClipperRevival]

TS isn't trying to measure who is a great player. It is only trying to measure scoring efficiency and does so far better than FG%.

PER overvalues inefficient scoring. If you take more shots then your PER will go up even if you are shooting in the low 30% range.

TS% heavily favors great shooters and bigs who take high pct shots near the basket with minimal attempts.

Also, PER measures EFFICIENCY, so it hampers anyone who is a chucker. That's why Iverson is 52nd all time in PER even though he is one of the best scorers ever. He didn't do it efficiently.

[tontoz]

TS% heavily favors great shooters and bigs who take high pct shots near the basket with minimal attempts.

Also, PER measures EFFICIENCY, so it hampers anyone who is a chucker. That's why Iverson is 52nd all time in PER even though he is one of the best scorers ever. He didn't do it efficiently.


No it doesn't. Part of the formula is for scoring efficiency and that is the part that is flawed. It also measures assists, rebounding, steals, turnovers all of that is in PER. It is not solely a measure of scoring efficiency.

A guy I know created his own stat to more accurately measure a players production. He calls it PPA. interesting read if you have the time.

http://kevinbroom.com/ppa/

TS is the best measure for scoring efficiency. When coupled with pts per minute you get a very accurate idea about a players scoring ability. Looking at only one or the other doesn't work.

[ClipperRevival]

No it doesn't. Part of the formula is for scoring efficiency and that is the part that is flawed. It also measures assists, rebounding, steals, turnovers all of that is in PER. It is not solely a measure of scoring efficiency.

A guy I know created his own stat to more accurately measure a players production. He calls it PPA. interesting read if you have the time.

http://kevinbroom.com/ppa/

TS is the best measure for scoring efficiency. When coupled with pts per minute you get a very accurate idea about a players scoring ability. Looking at only one or the other doesn't work.

And I never said it was. I am answering the question at hand. I think PER is about as good as it gets if I was FORCED to use one stat. No stat is the be all, end all. I also like the fact that it factors in everything else. It measures your impact on the court along with your efficiency.

[tontoz]

And I never said it was. I am answering the question at hand. I think PER is about as good as it gets if I was FORCED to use one stat. No stat is the be all, end all. I also like the fact that it factors in everything else. It measures your impact on the court along with your efficiency.


But you were replying to me. My comment was that TS >>>> FG%. I didn't say that TS was the best single stat to look at.

And you did say "Also, PER measures EFFICIENCY, so it hampers anyone who is a chucker." which isn't true. Of course I originally misread your comment thinking that you were saying that was all PER measured.

A players PER will go up even if he is chucking at a low % and hurting the team. A player shooting a better percentage will obviously see a bigger gain but both will see an increase.

[ClipperRevival]

But you were replying to me. My comment was that TS >>>> FG%. I didn't say that TS was the best single stat to look at.

And you did say "Also, PER measures EFFICIENCY, so it hampers anyone who is a chucker." which isn't true. Of course I originally misread your comment thinking that you were saying that was all PER measured.

A players PER will go up even if he is chucking at a low % and hurting the team. A player shooting a better percentage will obviously see a bigger gain but both will see an increase.

You are talking about an extreme case where a player would be a complete non-factor in everything else like reb, assists, steals, turnovers etc and is jacking up a historically high amount of shots to reach a certain amount of points.

But in the reality of things, if a player is shooting inefficiently, his PER will be low. Take Kobe this year. 17.1 fga and scoring 17.3 ppg on 35%. His PER is 13.5, which is terrible. At what point would his PER go up to compensate for his inefficiency? Take 35 shots a game? That's not realistic.

I see your points about TS%. Still think it favors great shooters (due to 3 pointers and FT %) along with bigs who shoot very little but take incredibly high pct shots. But I hope you see my point about PER.

[ClipperRevival]

TS% heavily favors great shooters and hampers players who might have an efficient game not based on 3 pointers. For instance, you only need to shoot 33% from 3 to get the same amount of points from 50% from 2. Now, the guy shooting 50% from 2 could be getting his points from a variety of ways, including "inefficient" long 2s, post games, etc. But scoring at a 50% clip, especially for a wing player is impressive. Probably moreso than a spot up 3 pt shooter who might shoot 33%.

In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't measure the impact of a scorer. It only measures the pct of shots made from FTs, 2 pts and 3 pts. So any stat that favors a certain kind of player, I am not completely sold on. I mean don't get me wrong, it has value but when you consider how TS% is calculated, it's easy to see that it clearly favors a certain type of player.

[tontoz]

You are talking about an extreme case where a player would be a complete non-factor in everything else like reb, assists, steals, turnovers etc and is jacking up a historically high amount of shots to reach a certain amount of points.

But in the reality of things, if a player is shooting inefficiently, his PER will be low. Take Kobe this year. 17.1 fga and scoring 17.3 ppg on 35%. His PER is 13.5, which is terrible. At what point would his PER go up to compensate for his inefficiency? Take 35 shots a game? That's not realistic.

I see your points about TS%. Still think it favors great shooters (due to 3 pointers and FT %) along with bigs who shoot very little but take incredibly high pct shots. But I hope you see my point about PER.


Among 3s Kobe ranks

24th in assist rate
22nd in turnover rate
49th in rebounding rate
41st in blocks
20th in steals

His scoring is what is propping up his PER.

TS should favor great shooters. Most of the time scoring efficiency is what determines which team wins the game.

[ClipperRevival]

Among 3s Kobe ranks

24th in assist rate
22nd in turnover rate
49th in rebounding rate
41st in blocks
20th in steals

His scoring is what is propping up his PER.

TS should favor great shooters. Most of the time scoring efficiency is what determines which team wins the game.

And his PER amongst 3s is ranked 23rd in the league. Yes, the fact that he's scoring 17+ ppg (albeit with terrible inefficiency) does somewhat prop up his PER because he's giving you 17 ppg. But in the grand scheme of things, it's a measure of overall efficiency IMO. If I had to pick one stat, I would take PER over TS% any day.

[tontoz]

And his PER amongst 3s is ranked 23rd in the league. Yes, the fact that he's scoring 17+ ppg (albeit with terrible inefficiency) does somewhat prop up his PER because he's giving you 17 ppg. But in the grand scheme of things, it's a measure of overall efficiency IMO. If I had to pick one stat, I would take PER over TS% any day.



Sure I would never look at only TS to evaluate a player.

But if I had to choose just one stat I would probably pick win shares or RPM because they measure both offense and defense.

Kobe's Per is 23rd among 3s but his RPM is 68th among 3s.

[ClipperRevival]

Sure I would never look at only TS to evaluate a player.

But if I had to choose just one stat I would probably pick win shares or RPM because they measure both offense and defense.

Kobe's Per is 23rd among 3s but his RPM is 68th among 3s.

Yeah, those are two good stats too. But i'm not a fan of TS%. Not when it favors a particular type of player. It really hampers a wing player whose game is 2 pt based but still efficient. A lot of bball is played within the 3 pt line. You can't hamper this type of player. That's why you don't see MJ or Bron anywhere near the TS leaders but do find them near the top on almost any other advanced star. But i see your points.

[feyki]

Erving in ABA - %55.75 TS

Erving in NBA - %55.80 TS

That's really interesting to me .

[tontoz]

Yeah, those are two good stats too. But i'm not a fan of TS%. Not when it favors a particular type of player. It really hampers a wing player whose game is 2 pt based but still efficient. A lot of bball is played within the 3 pt line. You can't hamper this type of player. That's why you don't see MJ or Bron anywhere near the TS leaders but do find them near the top on almost any other advanced star. But i see your points.

Do you have any examples?

Jordan had 4 straight seasons scoring roughly 30 ppg with a TS of 60%. There isn't a team in the league that has an average TS that high.

High volume and high TS = greatness.

[ClipperRevival]

Do you have any examples?

Jordan had 4 straight seasons scoring roughly 30 ppg with a TS of 60%. There isn't a team in the league that has an average TS that high.

High volume and high TS = greatness.

Well, that's because he had several seasons where he shot an extraordinarily high FG%, like 53% to 55%, which is unheard of for a wing player. That explains the boost.

But when you look at how TS is calculated, it's easy to see that to have a high TS as a 2 pt scorer, you need to be up there, like 55% from two. That's why guys like Barkley, Dantley and McHale are up there. And of course bigs who only take high pct 2s like Tyson Chandler that isn't terrible at FTs. It's a somewhat discriminating stat and completely devalues an efficient, wing scorer who doesn't shoot 3s. When i say efficient, i mean close to 50%.

[ClipperRevival]

Here are where some of the GOAT wing players who shot primarily from 2 pt rank in TS%:

Lebron - 50th
MJ - 79th
Gervin - 99th
Wade - 100th
King - 112th
Erving - 129th
West - 191th
English - 192nd
Drexler - 211th

Guys who didn't even crack the top 250:

Baylor
Barry
Maravich

[tontoz]

Well, that's because he had several seasons where he shot an extraordinarily high FG%, like 53% to 55%, which is unheard of for a wing player. That explains the boost.

But when you look at how TS is calculated, it's easy to see that to have a high TS as a 2 pt scorer, you need to be up there, like 55% from two. That's why guys like Barkley, Dantley and McHale are up there. And of course bigs who only take high pct 2s like Tyson Chandler that isn't terrible at FTs. It's a somewhat discriminating stat and completely devalues an efficient, wing scorer who doesn't shoot 3s. When i say efficient, i mean close to 50%.


If a guy shoots 50% on 2s, doesn't shoot 3s and gets to the foul line a lot he can still be an efficient scorer. The most efficient points are from inside attempts/foul shots/3s. There is no getting around that.

Curry is currently shooting 58% just on 2s.

[ClipperRevival]

Looking at the all-time leaders in TS, it's clearly filled by these specific type of players:

1) Great shooters (3 pt/FT)

2) Alpha dog scorers who shot EXTREMELY well from 2, mostly post up guys like Barkley, McHale, Dantley, Stoudamire, Howard, Ming, KAJ, Shaq, etc

3) Bigs who didn't shoot much but when they did shoot, only shot extremely high pct shots and could also hit their FTs (Chandler, J. Donaldson, West, B. Williams, Thorpe, Bobby Jones, Nene, Mutombo)

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ts_pct_career.html

[tontoz]

Here are where some of the GOAT wing players who shot primarily from 2 pt rank in TS%:

Lebron - 50th
MJ - 79th
Gervin - 99th
Wade - 100th
King - 112th
Erving - 129th
West - 191th
English - 192nd
Drexler - 211th

Guys who didn't even crack the top 250:

Baylor
Barry
Maravich


That is why you have to look at both scoring volume and TS to measure scoring ability. If a players TS is higher than the team average TS then he is helping the team when he shoots.

Only 3 teams in the league currently have a TS over 55%. If a player is averaging 25 ppg with a TS of 57% his TS won't rank high but he will be helping the team.

[ClipperRevival]

TS is trying to lump 3 pt shooters and at the rim shooters and everything in between into one simple stat. That's just not possible. I would rather look at FG%, FT% and 3PT% individually for each player with proper context. Any stat that discriminates against something as important is a very efficient wing player is not a good stat. Alpha dog wing scorers are some of the most impactful players in basketball.

[tontoz]

TS is trying to lump 3 pt shooters and at the rim shooters and everything in between into one simple stat. That's just not possible. I would rather look at FG%, FT% and 3PT% individually for each player with proper context. Any stat that discriminates against something as important is a very efficient wing player is not a good stat. Alpha dog wing scorers are some of the most impactful players in basketball.


TS very easily measures scoring efficiency. It is very simple math. 3s are worth more than 2s. Shots inside go in more often than 20 footers. Foul shots are high efficiency shots.

Low efficiency chuckers are just more exposed now than they used to be. If a wing player is taking a lot of 2 pt jumpers and not getting to the foul line much then he is not an efficient scorer.

FG % is a garbage stat.

[Sarcastic]

The correct answer is "there is no one stat that is better than others". The rules have changed across different eras, thus making stats uneven in said eras. It's not fair to use an efficiency stat, when some eras made it tough to be efficient.

The best way to compare players is to compare them to their peers from the same era, and not across different eras. Steph Curry playing in the 90s is not gonna have the same efficiency that he does now in a no hand checking era.

What you can say positively about Steph though is that he is dominating the no hand check era better than anyone else, which puts him at the top of this era.


The one thing that tends to stay common are the raw stats: ppg, rpg, and apg. Top scorers tend to score 25+. Top rebounder tend to grab 12+ boards. Top passers tend to get 10+ assists. How they reach those numbers changes depending on the rules though.

[ClipperRevival]

TS very easily measures scoring efficiency. It is very simple math. 3s are worth more than 2s. Shots inside go in more often than 20 footers. Foul shots are high efficiency shots.

Low efficiency chuckers are just more exposed now than they used to be. If a wing player is taking a lot of 2 pt jumpers and not getting to the foul line much then he is not an efficient scorer.

FG % is a garbage stat.

Come on bro. Look at the all-time leaders of TS%. It's a freaken JOKE. It's only comprised of a few type of players (which I listed above). It's a completely discriminatory stat.

Like I said, I would rather look at FG, FT and 3 PT pct for each player and look at each of those with proper context over TS%. I listed the GOAT level wing players and where they ranked. That stat means nothing to me. NOTHING.

[tontoz]

Come on bro. Look at the all-time leaders of TS%. It's a freaken JOKE. It's only comprised of a few type of players (which I listed above). It's a completely discriminatory stat.

Like I said, I would rather look at FG, FT and 3 PT pct for each player and look at each of those with proper context over TS%. I listed the GOAT level wing players and where they ranked. That stat means nothing to me. NOTHING.


Your problem is that you keep focusing on the TS leaders while ignoring points per minute. You have to look at both to measure scoring ability and you are only looking at one.

There is nothing wrong with the stat at all. It measures what it is supposed to measure. The problem is you.

The more points you score the harder it is to maintain high efficiency. That is just basic common sense.

[ClipperRevival]

Your problem is that you keep focusing on the TS leaders while ignoring points per minute. You have to look at both to measure scoring ability and you are only looking at one.

There is nothing wrong with the stat at all. It measures what it is supposed to measure. The problem is you.

The more points you score the harder it is to maintain high efficiency. That is just basic common sense.

Come on bro. LOOK at the list. It gives no indication of true efficiency but is limited to several specific type of players. Where it can be useful is comparing great SHOOTERS but other than that, it means nothing to me. If it does for you, fine. But to me, based on what I know from playing the game for 25 years and watching for longer and after applying common sense and how it applies to the game, it means nothing. It's a completely discriminating stat.

[tontoz]

Come on bro. LOOK at the list. It gives no indication of true efficiency but is limited to several specific type of players. Where it can be useful is comparing great SHOOTERS but other than that, it means nothing to me. If it does for you, fine. But to me, based on what I know from playing the game for 25 years and watching for longer and after applying common sense and how it applies to the game, it means nothing. It's a completely discriminating stat.


FG % is a true discriminatory stat because it is biased against guys who shoot 3s. Curry shoots 57.9% on 2s but his FG% is 7% lower. That is nonsense.

TS is just grade school math and it is the same for all players.

When you look at the TS leaders if you do a filter based on at least 15 pts per 36 then those TS "leaders" that are bothering you will disappear. It is a lot easier to maintain high efficiency on low volume.

[ClipperRevival]

That is why you have to look at both scoring volume and TS to measure scoring ability. If a players TS is higher than the team average TS then he is helping the team when he shoots.

Only 3 teams in the league currently have a TS over 55%. If a player is averaging 25 ppg with a TS of 57% his TS won't rank high but he will be helping the team.

:roll:

Really? Look at the players on that list and where they are ranked. They are THE GOAT wing scorers ever. When an advanced stat that measures "shooting" pct ranks MJ 79th and all the other GOAT level wing scorers where they are ranked, it means nothing. And yes, these guys were also high volume scorers too. They were high volume, GOAT level, wing scorers. Their only issue was they didn't shoot the 3, which completely made their efficient 2 point scoring meaningless based on how TS% is calculated.

[tontoz]

:roll:

Really? Look at the players on that list and where they are ranked. They are THE GOAT wing scorers ever. When an advanced stat that measures "shooting" pct ranks MJ 79th and all the other GOAT level wing scorers where they are ranked, it means nothing. And yes, these guys were also high volume scorers too. They were high volume, GOAT level, wing scorers. Their only issue was they didn't shoot the 3, which completely made their efficient 2 point scoring meaningless based on how TS% is calculated.


You are trying to compare a guy who averaged 30 ppg to Tyson Chandler who averaged 11. I can see I am wasting my time here.

[ClipperRevival]

You are trying to compare a guy who averaged 30 ppg to Tyson Chandler who averaged 11. I can see I am wasting my time here.

Yup. TS% has Chandler 3rd all time while MJ is 79th. Great stat indeed.

[Sarcastic]

Another problem with TS is that it does not take into account teammates played with nor role on the offense. Look at Lebron for example. When he played in Miami his TS went through the roof because defenses had to keep focus on Wade and Bosh. In Cleveland his TS plummeted because he didn't have the same superstar teammates to take the focus of the defense.

In the Finals last year he was asked to take a larger burden of the offense, and his TS went down further. However that was the best strategy for the Cavs, since everyone else was even worse.

If you asked Steve Nash to score 20+ a night, his efficiency would drop too.

[tontoz]

Yup. TS% has Chandler 3rd all time while MJ is 79th. Great stat indeed.


Your high school math teacher would probably kill himself if he read this thread. You just can't understand grade school math.

[ClipperRevival]

Here are where some of the GOAT wing players who shot primarily from 2 pt rank in TS%:

Lebron - 50th
MJ - 79th
Gervin - 99th
Wade - 100th
King - 112th
Erving - 129th
West - 191th
English - 192nd
Drexler - 211th

Guys who didn't even crack the top 250:

Baylor
Barry
Maravich

Great stat.

[tontoz]

Deandre Jordan leads the NBA in 2 pt % by a mile. What a garbage stat 2 pt % is.

Deandre's career 2 pt % is 67%, 16% higher than MJ's. How did anyone ever come up with such a biased stat.

:rolleyes:

[La Frescobaldi]

You do know the PER posted on sites like basketball reference uses a different formula for players prior to 74 to account for the missing data, right? Sure it's not perfect, but it isn't like they took PER and just plugged in a 0 for steals and blocks.

they did use zero.
or at least they did up til a couple years ago which was the last time i bothered with per at all since that made it so skewed.

edit after a phone call lol ~~~
http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/per.html
************************************************** ***
Problems arise for seasons prior to 1979-80:

1979-80 — debut of 3-point shot in NBA
1977-78 — player turnovers first recorded in NBA
1973-74 — player offensive rebounds, steals, and blocked shots first recorded in NBA

The calcuation of uPER obviously depends on these statistics, so here are my solutions for years when the data are missing:

Zero out three-point field goals, turnovers, blocked shots, and steals.
Set the league value of possession (VOP) equal to 1.
Set the defensive rebound percentage (DRB%) equal to 0.7.
Set player offensive rebounds (ORB) equal to 0.3 * TRB.

Some of these solutions may not be elegant, but I think they are reasonable. After uPER is calculated, an adjustment must be made for the team's pace. blah blah blah
***********************************************

the point is, you can't just fling Wilt Chamberlain's blocked shots into the sewer and say he had the same number as a guy like Don Ohl who may or may not have ever blocked a shot in his entire life. All-Star he may have been I lean towards.... he never did block any shots.
Nobody ever blocked more shots than Chamberlain. Maybe Russell did but if he did it was before anything I ever saw and that goes back a long long ways. When I watched em Russell would get 3 or 4 and Chamberlain would get 10 or 12 now is that an average no. But it was considerable the difference. Now Russell was like 80 years old or something right?
But the point here is at PER deliberately sets those stats to zero. Willis Reed wasn't the greatest shot blocker but he did more than his fair share and that's a fact but yet.......... ZERO.

[La Frescobaldi]

Yeah shooting percentages were a joke back in the old days.
yeah they were and although the 3 line made an enormous difference by pretty much forcing defense to be completely re-invented, if you compare just like 1964 with 1970 or 72 there was a huge jump in the ability to just put the ball in the hoop. crazy change

[La Frescobaldi]

Per game stats are without a doubt TERRIBLE when you're trying to look at different eras, they're BAD (REALLY BAD) even comparing players the same year.

Baylor is an interesting example actually. Lets take the 60-61 lakers who had a pace of 124.9 and well compare him to Tim Duncan's 03 season.

34.8 ppg
19.8 TRB
5.1 AST
42.9 mpg (used later)

Duncan

23.3 ppg
12.9 TRB
3.9 AST

Looking at these stats it's pretty hard to not favor Baylor. However the spurs pace was 90 that year.

We have per 100 duncan stats

31.6 17.5 5.3

But we don't have baylor's.

We do however know team pace and his percentage of minutes played

124.9*(42.9/48)=111.63

34.8 / 1.1163= 31.17
19.8 / 1.1163= 17.74
5.1 / 1.1163= 4.57

So just adjusting for a single issue (pace of play) we see a dramatic change in the raw per game stats to our per 100 stats.

We still haven't looked at efficiency and we have ZERO insight into their defense.

I don't disagree in many aspects.

One in particular, Duncan was from day one better than anything I ever saw out of Baylor. Granted i never saw him before he split his kneecap so it's not like I can say a whole lot. But in the tiny amount of movies we have of his earlier days, Duncan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Also defense and baylor do not go in the same sentence/paragraph/book/thread/galaxy.

[dhsilv]

TS% isn't a great stat. Look at the all-time leaders. Little correlation to the all-time best players. It favors either (1) very high pct shooting bigs who took minimal shot attempts, (2) shooters or (3) efficient post up players.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ts_pct_career.html

If I had to pick just one stat, I would go with PER. Much better correlation with all-time greats. Sure, there is a oddity or two but this holds for the most part.

http://i.imgur.com/p04Sfaq.jpg

Hmm, career accumulation.

ws does pretty well.

http://i.imgur.com/4ctSNRv.jpg

Here's peak WS, WS total and Peak PER.

Sure it's focused on peaks but if we're JUST talking top players all seem to get us close. All have an issue of when they start and what not. VORP i like better than the above but again started later.

But all of this has issues with comparing mid tier guys or weaker guys. Who's better Derk Fisher vs Robert Horry? Too much value is being focused here on the top players.

[dhsilv]

I don't disagree in many aspects.

One in particular, Duncan was from day one better than anything I ever saw out of Baylor. Granted i never saw him before he split his kneecap so it's not like I can say a whole lot. But in the tiny amount of movies we have of his earlier days, Duncan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Also defense and baylor do not go in the same sentence/paragraph/book/thread/galaxy.

Well we all I think agree Duncan>baylor. I have only seen some old videos on espn classic and youtube with baylor. But still the point was more how bad per game stats are and I used those two as examples of how badly they value a player.

[dhsilv]

[QUOTE=La Frescobaldi]they did use zero.
or at least they did up til a couple years ago which was the last time i bothered with per at all since that made it so skewed.

edit after a phone call lol ~~~
http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/per.html
************************************************** ***
Problems arise for seasons prior to 1979-80:

1979-80

[dhsilv]

Deandre Jordan leads the NBA in 2 pt % by a mile. What a garbage stat 2 pt % is.

Deandre's career 2 pt % is 67%, 16% higher than MJ's. How did anyone ever come up with such a biased stat.

:rolleyes:

counting math?

[dhsilv]

If I had to pick just one stat, I would go with PER. Much better correlation with all-time greats. Sure, there is a oddity or two but this holds for the most part.

http://i.imgur.com/p04Sfaq.jpg

Hmm, career accumulation.

ws does pretty well.

http://i.imgur.com/4ctSNRv.jpg

Here's peak WS, WS total and Peak PER.

Sure it's focused on peaks but if we're JUST talking top players all seem to get us close. All have an issue of when they start and what not. VORP i like better than the above but again started later.

But all of this has issues with comparing mid tier guys or weaker guys. Who's better Derk Fisher vs Robert Horry? Too much value is being focused here on the top players.

Having issues with image.

http://i.imgur.com/p04Sfaq.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/p04Sfaq.jpg

I can't get it to show...

[La Frescobaldi]

No.

I'd make that bold and big, but I'm not 12.

Anyway, I mean if you want yes they set the values to zero but they fundamentally altered the rest of the values as to give more value to the stats they did have to still come up with PER values that make sense. In other words they wanted to still show a 15 league average and they wanted amazing seasons to get a 30. The adjustments made here adjust up PER values with 0's for those stats to give us PER's the can be compared era to era.

How does adjusting rebounds somehow help count for Russell blocked shot numbers? How does it make up for Jerry West or Walt Frazier steals?

Per is worthless across eras and always was.
Now then of course no single stat tells the story; the op question was what is the best single stat, and I gave it.

[tmacattack33]

Deandre Jordan leads the NBA in 2 pt % by a mile. What a garbage stat 2 pt % is.

Deandre's career 2 pt % is 67%, 16% higher than MJ's. How did anyone ever come up with such a biased stat.

:rolleyes:


Nobody "came up" with it. It's already there. You just take FGA and FGM and get rid of the 3PTA and 3PTM.

And just like any other stat, it depends on how you use it. An idiot can use it incorrectly, but a smart person would dismiss Deandre being better than MJ by realizing that half of Deandre's shots are wide open lay-ups and alley oops created by Chris Paul.

[dhsilv]

How does adjusting rebounds somehow help count for Russell blocked shot numbers? How does it make up for Jerry West or Walt Frazier steals?

Per is worthless across eras and always was.
Now then of course no single stat tells the story; the op question was what is the best single stat, and I gave it.

Again, the stats makes sense when comparing era's. The only other alternative is winshare if you want to go back pre 70's. Otherwise you just don't have a stat that works.

[La Frescobaldi]

Again, the stats makes sense when comparing era's. The only other alternative is winshare if you want to go back pre 70's. Otherwise you just don't have a stat that works.

lolol mine does.

[dhsilv]

lolol mine does.

http://i.imgur.com/mf8iS9F.jpg

WS vs your stats. So Bob Pettit is the second best player of all time. Maurice Stokes at 11. Jerry Lucas at 17. Tim Duncan not in the top 20. Jordan falls to 6th all time.

I'm not a HUGE fan of WS by any stretch, but it's doing a much better job than your weird stat. Both clearly suck but if I were to expand this further down you'd get even more weird if not awful selections with yours.

[tontoz]

Nobody "came up" with it. It's already there. You just take FGA and FGM and get rid of the 3PTA and 3PTM.

And just like any other stat, it depends on how you use it. An idiot can use it incorrectly, but a smart person would dismiss Deandre being better than MJ by realizing that half of Deandre's shots are wide open lay-ups and alley oops created by Chris Paul.


I think you missed the point/sarcasm.


Yup. TS% has Chandler 3rd all time while MJ is 79th. Great stat indeed.


Anyone that shoots primarily dunks and layups will shoot a high percentage. That doesn't mean something is wrong with the stat.

[dhsilv]

http://i.imgur.com/XMBv4ZC.jpg

Here's your stat, WS, and PER for the top 50. I tried to highlight some of the more famous players but I'm sure I did a crappy job of that.

PER misses Russel massively. But WS seemed to get the people we generally rank top 15 in the top 25. Meanwhile a guy like Duncan drops to 37th with your points rebounds and assists while ranking Baylor 3rd all time. The era and pace bias is horrible.

Again as we move into role players your stat will more and more show some awful issues that WS would at least be less awful at.

[La Frescobaldi]

http://i.imgur.com/XMBv4ZC.jpg

Here's your stat, WS, and PER for the top 50. I tried to highlight some of the more famous players but I'm sure I did a crappy job of that.

PER misses Russel massively. But WS seemed to get the people we generally rank top 15 in the top 25. Meanwhile a guy like Duncan drops to 37th with your points rebounds and assists while ranking Baylor 3rd all time. The era and pace bias is horrible.

Again as we move into role players your stat will more and more show some awful issues that WS would at least be less awful at.

I have already discarded PER, for entirely valid reasons which first you denied, and now ignore. Yet you still wonder why it misses Russell? Without looking I'll wager it's vastly wrong about Tim Duncan too.

WS is flawed for the same reasons. What can it tell you about the defense of Bill Walton? Elvin Hayes? Was one of those guys better on defense than the other? What happens prior to 1974? Nearly all the elite players of the '60s were retired by then, Havlicek about the only one left.
The manufacturer of WS states plainly he's using estimates:
" B. 1973-74 to 1976-77 NBA

The NBA did not track player turnovers until the 1977-78 season, and player turnovers are needed to calculate player possessions. However, the NBA did track turnovers at the team level from 1973-74 to 1976-77. Since player turnovers are the only thing holding us back from using the method outlined above, I have chosen to estimate player turnovers for this time period."

Did Walt Frazier have a lot of turnovers? Almost the only thing we know about him using this........ is when he was in Siberia.
This is perfectly Pauk-like, and I reject it utterly - as should anyone who thinks an advanced stat is valid before it was valid.
Since Bill Walton spent time on some really lousy teams, his WS gets bashed..... because they don't know how many turnovers he had.... but they just give him credit for his teammate's? That is folly.

Now, after about 1990? Yeah those stats start to have some validity maybe. But to adjust the odometer whenever you please and then say "I travelled such and such miles last year" is ....... not worth talking about.

Of course, the OP called for best single stat yet you give 2. Both flawed and basically, making things up.

[dhsilv]

Not sure what's up with the chart not showing. You are saying we does not work because they leave out useful stats, but offer an alternative that is ten times worse than the results we get from the stats you're being critical of...

And Duncan does well in per as your expect. Well not you but smart people.

[La Frescobaldi]

Not sure what's up with the chart not showing. You are saying we does not work because they leave out useful stats, but offer an alternative that is ten times worse than the results we get from the stats you're being critical of...

And Duncan does well in per as your expect. Well not you but smart people.
lulz
personal attacks are the last resort before fleeing

[warriorfan]

.... from an old thread originally like maybe 2011 or something. Lot older than that. sitting in bleachers lol

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.

.... 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

This post is the biggest epic fail of all time.

I honestly don't believe that you believe that you can take Shaq's rebounds, assists, and points and compare them at face value to Wilt.

You are being intellectually dishonest.

Pace.

Pace is the amount of possessions a team will use during a game. If you play for a team with a pace of 100 possessions a game, your stats will be lower than if you played on a team that used 150 possessions per game. More possessions equal more rebounds are on the floor to be gotten, more opportunities for scoring and to rack up assists.

To boil it down even simpler. Do you have a better chance to put up greater total statistics if you get 4 possessions rather than 2?

You get the picture.

Wilt and Russell played in an extremely high paced era. Teams literally had 20 to 30% more possessions when compared to today's NBA. Just watch a random 1960's game and with your own eyes you will be able to immediately see what I am talking about.

As we went over before, more possessions = more opportunities to earn stats. If you are comparing players across eras you need to adjust the stats based on pace. That means if you are comparing Wilt to modern players you have to take away 20 to 30% of his statistics to adjust for pace.

There is a reason why no player has sniffed Wilt and Russell's rebounds per game in the past 50+ years.

And the reason is not that they were super humans who's achievements can never be replicated.

The reason is pace. They had so many more possessions played per game they had access to dozens and dozens of rebounds that modern day players never got to see.



Back to the OPs topic. There is no one perfect stat. They all have their separate benefits and pitfalls. The best method is using a combination of all the statistics and apply reasoning based on the context of the statistics. It is also essential to watch full games of the player under examination. A player like James Harden aces the stat sheet but after you watch some of his games you get the rest of the story.

[La Frescobaldi]

This post is the biggest epic fail of all time.

I honestly don't believe that you believe that you can take Shaq's rebounds, assists, and points and compare them at face value to Wilt.

You are being intellectually dishonest.

Pace.

Pace is the amount of possessions a team will use during a game. If you play for a team with a pace of 100 possessions a game, your stats will be lower than if you played on a team that used 150 possessions per game. More possessions equal more rebounds are on the floor to be gotten, more opportunities for scoring and to rack up assists.

To boil it down even simpler. Do you have a better chance to put up greater total statistics if you get 4 possessions rather than 2?

You get the picture.

Wilt and Russell played in an extremely high paced era. Teams literally had 20 to 30% more possessions when compared to today's NBA. Just watch a random 1960's game and with your own eyes you will be able to immediately see what I am talking about.

As we went over before, more possessions = more opportunities to earn stats. If you are comparing players across eras you need to adjust the stats based on pace. That means if you are comparing Wilt to modern players you have to take away 20 to 30% of his statistics to adjust for pace.

There is a reason why no player has sniffed Wilt and Russell's rebounds per game in the past 50+ years.

And the reason is not that they were super humans who's achievements can never be replicated.

The reason is pace. They had so many more possessions played per game they had access to dozens and dozens of rebounds that modern day players never got to see.



Back to the OPs topic. There is no one perfect stat. They all have their separate benefits and pitfalls. The best method is using a combination of all the statistics and apply reasoning based on the context of the statistics. It is also essential to watch full games of the player under examination. A player like James Harden aces the stat sheet but after you watch some of his games you get the rest of the story.

of course pace. who disagrees?

and exactly - there is no one perfect stat. I merely point out the best single stat there is; which was the OP's question.

[dhsilv]

lulz
personal attacks are the last resort before fleeing
I show that we does a better job. Thanks your stat, and you rant about failings of it, but then offer a much worse stat, and I illustrated how awful it was. So if you are not going to actually address what is said to you I will make fun of you. What else can I do if you are going to dismiss what is said and be unreasonable. As simply is a better stat for what you are doing. It's a crappy stat if you aren't wanting pre 70s. But you wanted that. Op never really gave me an idea of where he wanted to go. If I'm a GM real plus minus is king. If I want 80 s to nkw goat, I'd use vorp, but the history of the NBA, its winshare. Not your awful stat.

[La Frescobaldi]

I show that we does a better job. Thanks your stat, and you rant about failings of it, but then offer a much worse stat, and I illustrated how awful it was. So if you are not going to actually address what is said to you I will make fun of you. What else can I do if you are going to dismiss what is said and be unreasonable. As simply is a better stat for what you are doing. It's a crappy stat if you aren't wanting pre 70s. But you wanted that. Op never really gave me an idea of where he wanted to go. If I'm a GM real plus minus is king. If I want 80 s to nkw goat, I'd use vorp, but the history of the NBA, its winshare. Not your awful stat.

Or....... not. If you are struggling to read my posts I do apologize.

now +/- is a useful tool in many ways. I've liked it more and more the past few years; unfortunately it, too, falls into error the further back in history you go.

At any rate, if you will examine the earlier posts, you'll find it gets more and more clear that PER and WS are grossly wrong when looking at earlier eras, for all the reasons I gave, and several more which I'm not going to bother with.

In my view the best way to look at modern basketball, by which I mean since the referee scandals of mid-2000s and the resulting sea-change in the NBA, possibly BPM is the best.

But there is still no one single stat that yields complete impact on the court.

Good day to you sir.

[ClipperRevival]

I think you missed the point/sarcasm.




Anyone that shoots primarily dunks and layups will shoot a high percentage. That doesn't mean something is wrong with the stat.

Again bro, look at the list. It is completely inconsistent and comprises of only a select type of players as I noted in this thread. Any stat that leaves out the GOAT wing scorers ever that didn't shoot the 3 is completely flawed. You can't have a "true shooting" stat without including them. That's my opinion, if you disagree, fine.

[dhsilv]

Or....... not. If you are struggling to read my posts I do apologize.

now +/- is a useful tool in many ways. I've liked it more and more the past few years; unfortunately it, too, falls into error the further back in history you go.

At any rate, if you will examine the earlier posts, you'll find it gets more and more clear that PER and WS are grossly wrong when looking at earlier eras, for all the reasons I gave, and several more which I'm not going to bother with.

In my view the best way to look at modern basketball, by which I mean since the referee scandals of mid-2000s and the resulting sea-change in the NBA, possibly BPM is the best.

But there is still no one single stat that yields complete impact on the court.

Good day to you sir.
My lord. No we is better than ppg plus asg per game plus reb per game. Per is better too. You picked the worst way possible, as and per address to a degree pace, and they give reasonable results. Why would we us bmp instead of real plus minus? 2000 forward that is....bpm was created by regressing realnpluz minus.....it is the less accurate version....

[tontoz]

Again bro, look at the list. It is completely inconsistent and comprises of only a select type of players as I noted in this thread. Any stat that leaves out the GOAT wing scorers ever that didn't shoot the 3 is completely flawed. You can't have a "true shooting" stat without including them. That's my opinion, if you disagree, fine.


Deandre Jordan shoots 16% better than Michael Jordan on 2s. Does that mean he is a better scorer than MJ? Of course not. Does that mean 2 pt % is a bad stat? Of course not.

Anyone with half a brain knows that a guy who shoots nothing but layups and dunks will shoot a high percentage. It isn't too complicated for a normal person to understand.

Do you really think 2 pt % is a biased stat?

[ClipperRevival]

Deandre Jordan shoots 16% better than Michael Jordan on 2s. Does that mean he is a better scorer than MJ? Of course not. Does that mean 2 pt % is a bad stat? Of course not.

Anyone with half a brain knows that a guy who shoots nothing but layups and dunks will shoot a high percentage. It isn't too complicated for a normal person to understand.

Do you really think 2 pt % is a biased stat?

That's not an advanced stat but a singular stat. And I told you several times in this thread that when looking at FG, FT and 3PT pct, you need to consider CONTEXT.

[tontoz]

That's not an advanced stat but a singular stat. And I told you several times in this thread that when looking at FG, FT and 3PT pct, you need to consider CONTEXT.


You didn't answer the question. Is 2 pt % a biased stat? It is a yes or no question.

[ClipperRevival]

You didn't answer the question. Is 2 pt % a biased stat? It is a yes or no question.

No it isn't.

[tontoz]

No it isn't.


You sound confused. Your sole reason for claiming bias in TS is that low volume scorers that shoot mostly 3s or inside rank higher. The exact same is true for 2 pt % which favors inside scorers over perimeter scorers. So how can one be biased and the other not biased?

[ClipperRevival]

You sound confused. Your sole reason for claiming bias in TS is that low volume, high efficiency scorers rank higher. The exact same is true for 2 pt %. So how can one be biased and the other not biased?

FG% is a singular stat while TS is an advanced stat that involves 3 different variables. And that makes it bias based on the variables used. If you don't understand this, there is no point in discussing further.

[tontoz]

FG% is a singular stat while TS is an advanced stat that involves 3 different variables. And that makes it bias based on the variables used. If you don't understand this, there is no point in discussing further.




2 pt % favors guys who shoot nothing but layups and dunks over guys who shoot from the perimeter even moreso than TS does. So how can TS be biased but 2 pt % not biased?

The difference between DJ's 2 pt % and MJ's is 16%.

The difference between their TS is 5.3%.

But TS is biased and 2% isn't?

:facepalm

[Young X]

FG% is a singular stat while TS is an advanced stat that involves 3 different variables. And that makes it bias based on the variables used. If you don't understand this, there is no point in discussing further.How does it involve 3 different variables? It's literally just points per scoring possession.

[tontoz]

How does it involve 3 different variables? It's literally just points per scoring possession.


Finally someone who understands grade school math. :bowdown:

The only mathematical issue with TS is the way it accounts for foul shots. I think 2 foul shots might count as .8 of a shot attempt. don't remember the exact number.

Edit: I free throw counts as .44 of a possession. They had to make an adjustment for and1s and techs. There is a slight bias towards the best free throw shooters since they will take the techs.

[dhsilv]

How does it involve 3 different variables? It's literally just points per scoring possession.
Points, fga, fta.. So yes three items go into it...

[dhsilv]

http://i.imgur.com/XMBv4ZC.jpg

Here's your stat, WS, and PER for the top 50. I tried to highlight some of the more famous players but I'm sure I did a crappy job of that.

PER misses Russel massively. But WS seemed to get the people we generally rank top 15 in the top 25. Meanwhile a guy like Duncan drops to 37th with your points rebounds and assists while ranking Baylor 3rd all time. The era and pace bias is horrible.

Again as we move into role players your stat will more and more show some awful issues that WS would at least be less awful at.

http://i.imgur.com/XMBv4ZC.jpg

I have no idea why the image isn't working, it normally works just fine?

[Young X]

All TS% is is the amount of points scored compared to the amount of points that would've have potentially been scored if every possession had been capitalized on.

So if I take 8 shots and 4 FT attempts and end up scoring 15 points, I used about 10 possessions to score those points.

If I had never missed I would've scored 20 and had an 100 TS%. But scoring only 15 means I only scored 75% of what I could've which is a 75 TS%.

[tmacattack33]

TS% is obviously better than any one of its components by itself.

And I hope to see Yahoo Sports and ESPN start using it. So many casual fans just use those sites and start quoting stats they see on it to make judgements on players.

[dhsilv]

All TS% is is the amount of points scored compared to the amount of points that would've have potentially been scored if every possession had been capitalized on.

So if I take 8 shots and 4 FT attempts and end up scoring 15 points, I used about 10 possessions to score those points.

If I had never missed I would've scored 20 and had an 100 TS%. But scoring only 15 means I only scored 75% of what I could've which is a 75 TS%.

It's not possession related, it doesn't factor in turnovers or assists for example.

Keep in mind it also goes to 150% as it's setting each shot at only being worth 2 points. And then there's some weirdness going on with free throws which as mentioned before could be a technical shot or an and one.

You're basically right mind you, but you're slightly off in the explanation.

[Young X]

It's not possession related, it doesn't factor in turnovers or assists for example.

Keep in mind it also goes to 150% as it's setting each shot at only being worth 2 points. And then there's some weirdness going on with free throws which as mentioned before could be a technical shot or an and one.

You're basically right mind you, but you're slightly off in the explanation.I'm talking about scoring possessions. And the FT multiplier is the only thing I don't like about this stat but it doesn't make that big of a difference.

[dhsilv]

TS% is obviously better than any one of its components by itself.

And I hope to see Yahoo Sports and ESPN start using it. So many casual fans just use those sites and start quoting stats they see on it to make judgements on players.

http://i.imgur.com/LkbbiO0.jpg

ESNP is where I learned about TS% back when PER first came around. They've never taken it off....

[dhsilv]

I'm talking about scoring possessions. And the FT multiplier is the only thing I don't like about this stat but it doesn't make that big of a difference.

If you miss and the other team gets the ball, that's a non scoring possession and it counts towards TS%. .

I'm not sure if you're trying to make it hard or make it simple.

point scored / FGA + weird free throw stuff

That's really all it is. It's super simple and beyond me not really getting the .44 or .45 on the free throws piece (which still seems in the ball park I just don't know how they did the math), it's pretty easy to understand imo.

[Young X]

If you miss and the other team gets the ball, that's a non scoring possession and it counts towards TS%. .

I'm not sure if you're trying to make it hard or make it simple.

point scored / FGA + weird free throw stuff

That's really all it is. It's super simple and beyond me not really getting the .44 or .45 on the free throws piece (which still seems in the ball park I just don't know how they did the math), it's pretty easy to understand imo.?

Are FG attempts and FT attempts not possessions where you could've scored?

And they added the .44 multiplier because of And 1's and technical FT's.

[tontoz]

?

Are FG attempts and FT attempts not possessions where you could've scored?

And they added the .44 multiplier because of And 1's and technical FT's.


Exactly. If they made it straight .5 multiple then that would mean an and1/tech and a fga would be 1.5 possessions. Possessions would be too high so they had to make an adjustment on all foul shots to compensate.

[dhsilv]

?

Are FG attempts and FT attempts not possessions where you could've scored?

And they added the .44 multiplier because of And 1's and technical FT's.

So are turnovers or plays where you get an assist...

I understand the idea behind the .44, I don't know what the math that lead to that. I'm also kinda iffy on it. Should an and one not work like a 3 pointer where you get a free extra point into the equation? I don't want to get into the debate on the .44, but possession is just NOT an accurate word here.

[tontoz]

So are turnovers or plays where you get an assist...

I understand the idea behind the .44, I don't know what the math that lead to that. I'm also kinda iffy on it. Should an and one not work like a 3 pointer where you get a free extra point into the equation? I don't want to get into the debate on the .44, but possession is just NOT an accurate word here.


In order to do that they would have to keep track of and1s and techs separately from other foul shots.

You would have to give 0 possessions for and1 fts. Same thing for techs with the ball. Then you would have to figure out a way to account for techs without the ball. Then you would have to give a full possession for 2 shot foul.

But then what about a 3 ft foul? You would have to keep track of those separately as well.

Not practical. The .44 is just a compromise.

[dhsilv]

In order to do that they would have to keep track of and1s and techs separately from other foul shots.

You would have to give 0 possessions for and1 fts. Same thing for techs with the ball. Then you would have to figure out a way to account for techs without the ball. Then you would have to give a full possession for 2 shot foul.

But then what about a 3 ft foul? You would have to keep track of those separately as well.

Not practical. The .44 is just a compromise.

As I said I just don't know the math that went into the .44. Though we do track all of that today so no reason not to create an improved metric for this at this point.

[LAZERUSS]

This post is the biggest epic fail of all time.

I honestly don't believe that you believe that you can take Shaq's rebounds, assists, and points and compare them at face value to Wilt.

You are being intellectually dishonest.

Pace.

Pace is the amount of possessions a team will use during a game. If you play for a team with a pace of 100 possessions a game, your stats will be lower than if you played on a team that used 150 possessions per game. More possessions equal more rebounds are on the floor to be gotten, more opportunities for scoring and to rack up assists.

To boil it down even simpler. Do you have a better chance to put up greater total statistics if you get 4 possessions rather than 2?

You get the picture.

Wilt and Russell played in an extremely high paced era. Teams literally had 20 to 30% more possessions when compared to today's NBA. Just watch a random 1960's game and with your own eyes you will be able to immediately see what I am talking about.

As we went over before, more possessions = more opportunities to earn stats. If you are comparing players across eras you need to adjust the stats based on pace. That means if you are comparing Wilt to modern players you have to take away 20 to 30% of his statistics to adjust for pace.

There is a reason why no player has sniffed Wilt and Russell's rebounds per game in the past 50+ years.

And the reason is not that they were super humans who's achievements can never be replicated.

The reason is pace. They had so many more possessions played per game they had access to dozens and dozens of rebounds that modern day players never got to see.



Back to the OPs topic. There is no one perfect stat. They all have their separate benefits and pitfalls. The best method is using a combination of all the statistics and apply reasoning based on the context of the statistics. It is also essential to watch full games of the player under examination. A player like James Harden aces the stat sheet but after you watch some of his games you get the rest of the story.


First of all...150 possessions per game? :roll: :roll: :roll: You must be playing a video game, my friend.

Secondly, POINTS are not based on possessions...they are based on FGAs and FTAs. Plain-and-simple. AND, if you are going to use "pace" against players from the 60's, then you HAVE to adjust for league-wide eFG%'s, as well. Otherwise, the numbers don't translate.

Finally...why was it basically ONLY Chamberlain who was putting up those UNFATHOMABLE numbers? I could list his accomplishments, relative to his era, until the cows come home, but how about these...

In his 14 seasons in the NBA, the highest full-time "non-Wilt" scoring average was Rick Barry's 35.6 ppg in '67 (BTW, even Barry acknowledged that had Wilt wanted the scoring title that season, he would have had it.) While 35.6 ppg is outstanding, Bob McAdoo had a season of 34.5 ppg (in a league that averaged 103 ppg) after Wilt retired. Jordan had a season of 37.1 ppg (in a league that averaged 110 ppg), and Kobe had a season of 35.4 ppg (in a league that averaged 97 ppg.) Clearly, Barry's season was not an other-worldly accomplishment.

Or how about this? In the 14 seasons in the Wilt-era, there were a combined TOTAL of FIVE 60+ point games by anyone not named Wilt. How about Chamberlain? 32! Or that Chamberlain had a five game streak of 351 points (70.2 ppg) and in which he had FOUR 60+ point games, and the 5th was at 58. Or that Chamberlain had entire seasons, covering 9-13 H2H games, against RUSSELL, in which he AVERAGED 38, 39, and even 40 ppg. Or that Wilt had a 20 game streak against BELLAMY in which he AVERAGED 48 ppg.

Or that Wilt's new coach in his 69-70 season asked a 33 year old Wilt to become the focal point of the offense. And Chamberlain responded by leading the league in scoring at 32.2 ppg (on a .579 FG%) in the first nine games. Unfortunately, Wilt blew out his knee in his ninth game (BTW, he had scored 33 points, on 13-14 shooting, and in only 28 minutes when he shredded it...so he was on his way to a 40 and perhaps even 50 point game.) Thnink about that. In that same season, rookie Kareem would average 28.8 ppg on a .518 FG%. A peak Kareem would average 34.8 ppg on a .574 FG%.

Or that just the year before KAJ arrived, a 32 year old Wilt, in a season in which he hardly shot the ball, had TWO 60+ point games. In Kareem's 20 years in the NBA, his high game was 55 points.


Wilt was winning scoring titles by 11 and even 19 ppg. He was winning rpg titles by 5 per game. He was winning FG% titles by margins of .157 and .162 over the next guy. Here was a center also putting up seasons of 7.8 and 8.6 apg. With known games of 23 blocks (and estimated games of as high as 33.) He had back-to-back games against HOFers Bellamy and Russell of 73-36 and 62-28. He had a game against Russell, the second best rebounder in the Wilt era, in which he outrebounded him by a 55-19 margin.


Again...why ONLY WILT?

[La Frescobaldi]

First of all...150 possessions per game? :roll: :roll: :roll: You must be playing a video game, my friend.

Secondly, POINTS are not based on possessions...they are based on FGAs and FTAs. Plain-and-simple. AND, if you are going to use "pace" against players from the 60's, then you HAVE to adjust for league-wide eFG%'s, as well. Otherwise, the numbers don't translate.

Finally...why was it basically ONLY Chamberlain who was putting up those UNFATHOMABLE numbers? I could list his accomplishments, relative to his era, until the cows come home, but how about these...

In his 14 seasons in the NBA, the highest full-time "non-Wilt" scoring average was Rick Barry's 35.6 ppg in '67 (BTW, even Barry acknowledged that had Wilt wanted the scoring title that season, he would have had it.) While 35.6 ppg is outstanding, Bob McAdoo had a season of 34.5 ppg (in a league that averaged 103 ppg) after Wilt retired. Jordan had a season of 37.1 ppg (in a league that averaged 110 ppg), and Kobe had a season of 35.4 ppg (in a league that averaged 97 ppg.) Clearly, Barry's season was not an other-worldly accomplishment.

Or how about this? In the 14 seasons in the Wilt-era, there were a combined TOTAL of FIVE 60+ point games by anyone not named Wilt. How about Chamberlain? 32! Or that Chamberlain had a five game streak of 351 points (70.2 ppg) and in which he had FOUR 60+ point games, and the 5th was at 58. Or that Chamberlain had entire seasons, covering 9-13 H2H games, against RUSSELL, in which he AVERAGED 38, 39, and even 40 ppg. Or that Wilt had a 20 game streak against BELLAMY in which he AVERAGED 48 ppg.

Or that Wilt's new coach in his 69-70 season asked a 33 year old Wilt to become the focal point of the offense. And Chamberlain responded by leading the league in scoring at 32.2 ppg (on a .579 FG%) in the first nine games. Unfortunately, Wilt blew out his knee in his ninth game (BTW, he had scored 33 points, on 13-14 shooting, and in only 28 minutes when he shredded it...so he was on his way to a 40 and perhaps even 50 point game.) Thnink about that. In that same season, rookie Kareem would average 28.8 ppg on a .518 FG%. A peak Kareem would average 34.8 ppg on a .574 FG%.

Or that just the year before KAJ arrived, a 32 year old Wilt, in a season in which he hardly shot the ball, had TWO 60+ point games. In Kareem's 20 years in the NBA, his high game was 55 points.


Wilt was winning scoring titles by 11 and even 19 ppg. He was winning rpg titles by 5 per game. He was winning FG% titles by margins of .157 and .162 over the next guy. Here was a center also putting up seasons of 7.8 and 8.6 apg. With known games of 23 blocks (and estimated games of as high as 33.) He had back-to-back games against HOFers Bellamy and Russell of 73-36 and 62-28. He had a game against Russell, the second best rebounder in the Wilt era, in which he outrebounded him by a 55-19 margin.


Again...why ONLY WILT?

i don't bother that much with him Laz

with the same slothful stats warriorfan is another pauk alt

nash warriorfan pauk = identity theft of himself

[LAZERUSS]

i don't bother that much with him Laz

with the same slothful stats warriorfan is another pauk alt

nash warriorfan pauk = identity theft of himself

I just find it laughable on the extent that the bashers go out of their way to diminish and disparage what Chamberlain accomplished.

Thankfully we have the GOAT "bridge" in Kareem. The same KAJ that, at age 38-39, was just castrating a helpless 23-24 year old Hakeem (and then as a 40 year old, badly outplayed a 25 year old Hakeem in their four H2H's.)

A peak Kareem struggled far more against a way-past-his-prime Wilt, and a fading Thurmond, than he did in the twi-light of his career against mid-20's Hakeem and Ewing.

And that doesn't even bring a prime Moses into the conversation, who basically owned Kareem in their career H2H's (granted, KAJ was no longer near his peak.)

And we know that a peak Kareem played four years in the Wilt-era, and while he was truly a dominant player (arguably the second most dominant peak of all-time), he didn't approach the records that Chamberlain had put up. And keep in mind that Wilt was STILL setting records even into his last season.

Nor do the bashers acknowledge that a 36 year old Wilt badly outplayed a peak 6-11 HOFer Bob Lanier in their five H2H games (and in their last 11 H2H's, Wilt averaged 24 ppg on a .750 FG%.)

Or that we have video footage of a 35 year old Chamberlain badly outplaying an ABA Gilmore who, along with Dr. J, was the best player in ABA history.

Lanier and Gilmore were two of the most dominant players in the 70's and in Gilmore's case, even into the 80's. Oh, and Robert Parish, who faced both Gilmore and Shaq, claimed that Gilmore was stronger.

Or that an old Moses, way past his prime, outrebounded Hakeem in their H2H's in a season in which Hakeem led the NBA in rpg.

We can go on-and-on, but clearly, we have strong evidence that a prime Chamberlain would still be an overwhelming force in ANY era.

[Akrazotile]

I would say # of FMVP's won by players with multiple MVP's.

This eliminates fluke players who've won MVP's when they shouldn't (Rose, Kobe, etc.) it also eliminates players who won fluke FMVP's (Wade, Parker, Leonard, Iguodala), and it also eliminates guys who won a couple MVP's but never made a finals (Nash).


Basically just gives you the best of the best. Lebron, Jordan, Kareem, Magic, Bird etc.

[ClipperRevival]

How does it involve 3 different variables? It's literally just points per scoring possession.

Statistically, you need to shoot 33% from 3 to score as many points as 2 pointers on 50%. So according to TS%, the guy shooting 33% is just as good of a "shooter" as a 50% scorer from 2. But it doesn't take nothing else into consideration. For example, take a GOAT level wing scorer who did it primarily from 2 pointers. Now, a 2 point shot is anything within the 3 point line and the variety in the amount of shots can vary greatly. And any high volume wing scorer like that who scores close to 50% is very efficient, because that can include a lot of 20-22 foot long, 2s.

But TS% saids that the spot up shooter who might shot a few wide open 3 pointers a game at a 33% clip is just as good of a shooter as the high volume, 2 point wing player who gives you 50%. So it naturally favors 3 point shooters or guys who take high pct shots while completely hampering high volume, 2 point wing scorers.

Here are where some of the GOAT wing players who shot primarily from 2 pt rank in TS%:

Lebron - 50th
MJ - 79th
Gervin - 99th
Wade - 100th
King - 112th
Erving - 129th
West - 191th
English - 192nd
Drexler - 211th

Guys who didn't even crack the top 250:

Baylor
Barry
Maravich

I mean come on. Any advanced stat that has these GOAT level wing scorers this low is flawed.

[Young X]

Statistically, you need to shoot 33% from 3 to score as many points as 2 pointers on 50%. So according to TS%, the guy shooting 33% is just as good of a "shooter" as a 50% scorer from 2. But it doesn't take nothing else into consideration. For example, take a GOAT level wing scorer who did it primarily from 2 pointers. Now, a 2 point shot is anything within the 3 point line and the variety in the amount of shots can vary greatly. And any high volume wing scorer like that who scores close to 50% is very efficient, because that can include a lot of 20-22 foot long, 2s.

But TS% saids that the spot up shooter who might shot a few wide open 3 pointers a game at a 33% clip is just as good of a shooter as the high volume, 2 point wing player who gives you 50%. So it naturally favors 3 point shooters or guys who take high pct shots while completely hampering high volume, 2 point wing scorers.

Here are where some of the GOAT wing players who shot primarily from 2 pt rank in TS%:

Lebron - 50th
MJ - 79th
Gervin - 99th
Wade - 100th
King - 112th
Erving - 129th
West - 191th
English - 192nd
Drexler - 211th

Guys who didn't even crack the top 250:

Baylor
Barry
Maravich

I mean come on. Any advanced stat that has these GOAT level wing scorers this low is flawed.TS% is saying the spot up shooter is shooting just as efficiently as the 2 point wing scorer, it's not saying their scoring is just as good.

But this is why you have to factor in VOLUME.

And why you have to compare guys who play similar roles.

All those guys you mentioned were 25+ scorers, of course they're not gonna be as efficient as great spot up shooters. Doesn't mean the stat can't be useful, you just have to use it right.

Tyson Chandler is ranked much higher in FG% than Kevin Durant. Does this mean the stat is flawed or does it mean you can't compare players who play completely different roles?

[ClipperRevival]

TS% is saying the spot up shooter is shooting just as efficiently as the 2 point wing scorer, it's not saying their scoring is just as good.

But this is why you have to factor in VOLUME.

And why you have to compare guys who play similar roles.

All those guys you mentioned were 25+ scorers, of course their not gonna be as efficient as great spot up shooters. Doesn't mean the stat can't be useful, you just have to use it right.

It's a flawed stat to me because it clearly favors only several type of players:

1) Great shooters (3 pt and/or FT)
2) Bigs who take high pct shots AND can hit their FTs at a decent clip

It is completely void of great, wing scorers who shot primarily the 2. Great wing scorers are some of the most impactful and important players in bball. Yet look at the list and where the GOAT level wing scorers are ranked. It's flawed and it carries little weight in my eyes. If you value it, that's fine.

[ClipperRevival]

TS% is saying the spot up shooter is shooting just as efficiently as the 2 point wing scorer, it's not saying their scoring is just as good.

But this is why you have to factor in VOLUME.

And why you have to compare guys who play similar roles.

All those guys you mentioned were 25+ scorers, of course they're not gonna be as efficient as great spot up shooters. Doesn't mean the stat can't be useful, you just have to use it right.

Tyson Chandler is ranked much higher in FG% than Kevin Durant. Does this mean the stat is flawed or does it mean you can't compare players who play completely different roles?

A singular stat like FG% is not an advanced stat so of course context is needed. But TS% is supposedly an "advanced" stat that measures "true shooting pct". But it's a flawed stat because it clearly discriminates against certain type of players. Again, if you value it, that's fine.

[TheMarkMadsen]

TS% is GREAT when comparing the bigs to guards. Bigs have the advantage of mostly taking shots from 2-6 feet from the basket while guards are constantly working harder to create their shot and taking jumpers over guys from 16-22 ft away. The difference in FT% should always be accounted for

however there are players like James Harden whose TS% isn't indicative of how good of a scorer he is. But simply watching the games solves that problem if you watched Harden play

[Young X]

It's a flawed stat to me because it clearly favors only several type of players:

1) Great shooters (3 pt and/or FT)
2) Bigs who take high pct shots AND can hit their FTs at a decent clip

It is completely void of great, wing scorers who shot primarily the 2. Great wing scorers are some of the most impactful and important players in bball. Yet look at the list and where the GOAT level wing scorers are ranked. It's flawed and it carries little weight in my eyes. If you value it, that's fine.The problem is you're using it as a player ranking stat or thinking it measures who the best scorers are.

But it doesn't. It just measures efficiency regardless of volume.

You have to compare the TS% of players who have similar volume.

Like Wade vs. Kobe.

Lebron vs. Bird.

Shaq vs. Hakeem.

It's not "discriminating" against any type of player, it's just looking at who gets the most points possible out of their scoring attempts. That's it.

[Young X]

Another thing is, if 2 teams have the same amount of offensive rebounds and turnovers, the team with the higher TS% will ALWAYS win. Always.

You can't say the same thing for FG% because one team can miss more shots but make up for it by hitting more 3 pointers or making more FT's. That's why it's a better metric to use.

[ClipperRevival]

The problem is you're using it as a player ranking stat or thinking it measures who the best scorers are.

But it doesn't. It just measures efficiency regardless of volume.

You have to compare the TS% of players who have similar volume.

Like Wade vs. Kobe.

Lebron vs. Bird.

Shaq vs. Hakeem.

It's not "discriminating" against any type of player, it's just looking at who gets the most points possible out of their scoring attempts. That's it.

I get what you're saying. Ever since the heavy usage of advanced stats, it has proven mathematically that it makes a lot of sense to shoot the 3 because 33% from 3 is the same as 50% from 2. And it's easier to shoot 33% or higher from 3 than it is for a wing scorer to shoot 50% or higher from 2. Heck, if you shoot 40% from 3, you need to shoot 60% from 2. The higher pct you shoot from 3, the more impossible it is to match that production from 2. So in reality, it is just easier to be CONSIDERED a better shooter according to TS% if you shoot the 3 a lot.

Personally, it's not a stat i really like. If you value it, that's fine.

[TheMarkMadsen]

Well TS% isn't lying if it concludes that 3>2's but there isn't anybody on earth that can go 10-20 from 3 every night against NBA defense. There isn't even anybody who can hit 5+ consistently per night besides Curry and he's only at 4.8 with the next best being 3 per night by Klay.

[feyki]

Defence most important point in basketball . Playmaking is control of the offence , and playmaking second most important point . Shooting always beat scoring , third best is shooting . Fourth best is scoring . And fifth best is Rebounds,misses,turnovers,steals or other named possesions controls .

Defensive Rating

Assists per 100 poss

TS%

Points per 100 poss

Rebounds,Steals,Turnovers


..