3-4 on two point fg is the same TS% as 2-4 on three point fg right?

[Akhenaten]

Please don't troll me y'all I'm a eye test and raw stats guy just trying to get the Rosetta stone for this language y'all be speaking on here.

So in the example cited in the title both player's ts% would be 75% right?

[nba_55]

Yup, you get 6 points on 4 shots in both case.

[warriorfan]

Op is budaddii

[Im Still Ballin]

Op is budaddii

[Ranked 12th]

Op is budaddii

Budadiii has this poor soul shook


Stay losing you autistic, diabetic dweeb :oldlol:

[Akhenaten]

So ts% is a conflation of a dimensionless quantity (percentage) and a quantity of dimension (points)?

So then a player who makes 4-4 threes "truly" shoots or makes 150% of his shots, while a player making 4-4 on twos "truly" shoots 100%. I would sincerely hope that for as many folks here who consider themselves intellectuals that y'all realize ts "%" has nothing to do with percentage AT ALL.

It has nothing to do with mathematics either, because the first precept in mathematics is that any operation has to resolve in order to be TRUE.

The added percentage value given to made threes is purely a NOMINAL one as it's PERCENTAGE value is literally based on the value of a made 3 in relation to a made 2. In the obverse a missed three isn't likewise NOMINALLY devalued in a proportional manner to how it is valued when made.

So that a player who makes 2 of 6 three point shots is said (purely nominal) to "truly" shoot the same percentage as a guy who makes 3 of 6 two point fg i.e 50%. TS% says that extra miss not only doesn't matter it doesn't even exist...it is not ACCOUNTED for.

It's not math, its not a representation of efficiency it's LINGUISTIC sleight-of-hand. I.e. BULLSH*T

Want to express the value and the efficiency of a made 3 vs a made 2? Simple PPP or points per fga is accurate and mathematically TRUE. However whoever made up this "stat" (again, TS% is NOT a stat) knew ppfga wouldn't have the same marketability or glittery pizzaz of TS%.

Saying a guy who scores 30 on 20 shots scores 1.5 points per fga doesn't have quite the same deific impression that saying he truly shoots 68% does.

[brain drain]

So ts% is a conflation of a dimensionless quantity (percentage) and a quantity of dimension (points)?

So then a player who makes 4-4 threes "truly" shoots or makes 150% of his shots, while a player making 4-4 on twos "truly" shoots 100%. I would sincerely hope that for as many folks here who consider themselves intellectuals that y'all realize ts "%" has nothing to do with percentage AT ALL.

It has nothing to do with mathematics either, because the first precept in mathematics is that any operation has to resolve in order to be TRUE.

The added percentage value given to made threes is purely a NOMINAL one as it's PERCENTAGE value is literally based on the value of a made 3 in relation to a made 2. In the obverse a missed three isn't likewise NOMINALLY devalued in a proportional manner to how it is valued when made.

So that a player who makes 2 of 6 three point shots is said (purely nominal) to "truly" shoot the same percentage as a guy who makes 3 of 6 two point fg i.e 50%. TS% says that extra miss not only doesn't matter it doesn't even exist...it is not ACCOUNTED for.

It's not math, its not a representation of efficiency it's LINGUISTIC sleight-of-hand. I.e. BULLSH*T

Want to express the value and the efficiency of a made 3 vs a made 2? Simple PPP or points per fga is accurate and mathematically TRUE. However whoever made up this "stat" (again, TS% is NOT a stat) knew ppfga wouldn't have the same marketability or glittery pizzaz of TS%.

Saying a guy who scores 30 on 20 shots scores 1.5 points per fga doesn't have quite the same deific impression that saying he truly shoots 68% does.

LOL. You know that using a percentage simply means measuring one number relative to another number. TS% measures point output per shot relative to shooting 100% of 2s.

Which means that shooting 100% on 2s is 100% TS%.

And which also means that shooting 100% on 3s is 150% TS% because you're getting 50% more points out of it compared to shooting 100% of 2s.

BTW, extra misses on 3s absolutely ARE accounted for. Shooting 10/10 3 pointers results in a higher TS% than shooting 9/10 on 3 pointers.

And using points per fga isn't as comprehensive as using TS% because it doesn't account for free throws.

[Overdrive]

It has nothing to do with mathematics either, because the first precept in mathematics is that any operation has to resolve in order to be TRUE.

2 > 1 is a true statment. There's no resolving around here. 1 = 0 is a false statement.

Here's the formula for TS%:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_shooting_percentage

That's a simple mathematical equation that always is true, because TS% is a variable number and also always resolvable, because there are no negative FTs or FGs.

I think calling it % irritates you. Well what's to expect from a company that has standings with .500 win percentage. Which would be 1 win in every 200 games.



So that a player who makes 2 of 6 three point shots is said (purely nominal) to "truly" shoot the same percentage as a guy who makes 3 of 6 two point fg i.e 50%. TS% says that extra miss not only doesn't matter it doesn't even exist...it is not ACCOUNTED for.

It's not math, its not a representation of efficiency it's LINGUISTIC sleight-of-hand. I.e. BULLSH*T

Want to express the value and the efficiency of a made 3 vs a made 2? Simple PPP or points per fga is accurate and mathematically TRUE. However whoever made up this "stat" (again, TS% is NOT a stat) knew ppfga wouldn't have the same marketability or glittery pizzaz of TS%.
does.

PPP/2 = TS% neither accounts for misses without any further context. It's the same thing different name.

[GrapeApe]

My only problem with TS% is that it marginalizes missed shots. For example, two players can each have a 57%TS, but one player shoots 45% and the other shoots 52%. Their TS% says they are equally efficient, however one player misses more shots. Missed shots are inherently bad, which gives the advantage to the player who has a better raw FG%. That's why it's important to look at both TS% and raw FG% when comparing players or judging efficiency.

[Akhenaten]

LOL. You know that using a percentage simply means measuring one number relative to another number. TS% measures point output per shot relative to shooting 100% of 2s.

Not quite,it measures AVERAGE point output per shot relative to shooting a 100% on 2's. That's where the chicanery comes in, percentage as you said is about relation or ratio, the number of occurrences of a particular phenomena or event vs the nonoccurrence of a phenomena or event.

That's why it's referred to as being a dimensionless or PURE number, TS% takes the average degrees of a particular event occurrence (a made basket) and conflates it with the amount of times said event occurs.

TS% says that if I have 14 visitors at my house in one day vs having 2 visitors per day for 7 days, the percentage of days I had a vistor is the same because either way it AVERAGES out to 2 visitors a day.

This is what I mean when I say misses are not accounted for, you are rewarded additional percentage points for makes (on TOP of already getting and extra point) but not similarly penalized percentage points for missing three point shots. A 3 point make is accredited a 150 percentage points ON TOP of 1 extra ACTUAL point. So if a guy makes his first 6 threes and misses his next 3 TS says this guy shot the same percentage as a guy who made 9/9 two point shots.

TS percentage says those 3 extra misses are of no consequence because the point averages are the same per shot attempt. Averages and percentages are NOT the same. Missed baskets whether 3 point shots or at the rim are potential break situations, a made basket is not. 6 of 9 on three is NOT the same PERCENTAGE efficiency as 9/9 on twos because the points average out to the same.


And using points per fga isn't as comprehensive as using TS% because it doesn't account for free throws.

It is if you simply divide FTA by 2, so 4 FTA = 2 fga ..simple

[GrapeApe]

This is what I mean when I say misses are not accounted for, you are rewarded additional percentage points for makes (on TOP of already getting and extra point) but not similarly penalized percentage points for missing three point shots. A 3 point make is accredited a 150 percentage points ON TOP of 1 extra ACTUAL point. So if a guy makes his first 6 threes and misses his next 3 TS says this guy shot the same percentage as a guy who made 9/9 two point shots.

TS percentage says those 3 extra misses are of no consequence because the point averages are the same per shot attempt. Averages and percentages are NOT the same. Missed baskets whether 3 point shots or at the rim are potential break situations, a made basket is not. 6 of 9 on three is NOT the same PERCENTAGE efficiency as 9/9 on twos because the points average

Exactly, and like I said before, missed shots are inherently bad. The opposing team is more likely to score off a missed shot than a made shot. This is a statistical fact. A missed shot presents transition opportunities and makes it more difficult for the defense to get set. That's why shooting a good raw % is still important.

[Bernie Nips]

So this is what basketball has become.

[Phenith]

I'm shocked at the number of people who really don't understand basic math principals at all. This is the reason stats are a bad measure of a player or team... most people don't understand the context isn't consistent and/or understated on many advances stats.

A players FG% is his percent of shots he makes compared to the number of attempts. FG% is a raw aggregate stat.

EFG% is the percentage of 2 point shots a player would have to make to score the same number of points if all his FG attempts were 2 pointers. It's relative to 2 point shooting, but it's still a percentage, just with a wildly different context.

[MMM]

edit: retarded post

[ralph_i_el]

So ts% is a conflation of a dimensionless quantity (percentage) and a quantity of dimension (points)?

So then a player who makes 4-4 threes "truly" shoots or makes 150% of his shots, while a player making 4-4 on twos "truly" shoots 100%. I would sincerely hope that for as many folks here who consider themselves intellectuals that y'all realize ts "%" has nothing to do with percentage AT ALL.

It has nothing to do with mathematics either, because the first precept in mathematics is that any operation has to resolve in order to be TRUE.

The added percentage value given to made threes is purely a NOMINAL one as it's PERCENTAGE value is literally based on the value of a made 3 in relation to a made 2. In the obverse a missed three isn't likewise NOMINALLY devalued in a proportional manner to how it is valued when made.

So that a player who makes 2 of 6 three point shots is said (purely nominal) to "truly" shoot the same percentage as a guy who makes 3 of 6 two point fg i.e 50%. TS% says that extra miss not only doesn't matter it doesn't even exist...it is not ACCOUNTED for.

It's not math, its not a representation of efficiency it's LINGUISTIC sleight-of-hand. I.e. BULLSH*T

Want to express the value and the efficiency of a made 3 vs a made 2? Simple PPP or points per fga is accurate and mathematically TRUE. However whoever made up this "stat" (again, TS% is NOT a stat) knew ppfga wouldn't have the same marketability or glittery pizzaz of TS%.

Saying a guy who scores 30 on 20 shots scores 1.5 points per fga doesn't have quite the same deific impression that saying he truly shoots 68% does.

:facepalm
Linguistic sleight-of-hand bullshit is what you post

[ralph_i_el]

My only problem with TS% is that it marginalizes missed shots. For example, two players can each have a 57%TS, but one player shoots 45% and the other shoots 52%. Their TS% says they are equally efficient, however one player misses more shots. Missed shots are inherently bad, which gives the advantage to the player who has a better raw FG%. That's why it's important to look at both TS% and raw FG% when comparing players or judging efficiency.

one player missed more shots sure, but the other player hit more valuable shots. They are the same when the goal is to maximize points per possession.

[ralph_i_el]

Budadiii has this poor soul shook


Stay losing you autistic, diabetic dweeb :oldlol:

^Also Budadiii/Fudge/G.U.S

[sd3035]

OP doesn't understand TS% :roll:

[GrapeApe]

one player missed more shots sure, but the other player hit more valuable shots. They are the same when the goal is to maximize points per possession.

You're missing the point. The goal is to win, and part of doing that is preventing the other team from scoring. That is more difficilult off a missed fg than a made fg. In a league where an astounding amount of games are decided by 1 or 2 possessions, every missed shot can be significant.

If two players have a similar TS%, you want the player who misses fewer shots. Of course if the gap in TS% is huge, the additional missed shots may be nullified. I'm not saying that TS% is a bad metric, it just doesn't tell the whole story. It's best used in conjunction with raw fg%.

[90sgoat]

TS% is the most retarded 'stat' there is and it definitely has nothing to do with percentages.

TS% tells us that Wizards MJ was horribly inefficient, yet when we look at the stats for his second year we get:

22 ppg on 44,5 FG% and 82 FT% with less than 1 3 point attempt.

Inefficient:roll: :roll: :roll:

That is HIGHLY efficient compared to all these chucking bs comboguards.

A 'stat' that shows the above statline to be inefficient is a worthless stat.

[warriorfan]

90sgoat is budaddii

[nba_55]

TS% is the most retarded 'stat' there is and it definitely has nothing to do with percentages.

TS% tells us that Wizards MJ was horribly inefficient, yet when we look at the stats for his second year we get:

22 ppg on 44,5 FG% and 82 FT% with less than 1 3 point attempt.

Inefficient:roll: :roll: :roll:

That is HIGHLY efficient compared to all these chucking bs comboguards.

A 'stat' that shows the above statline to be inefficient is a worthless stat.

Explain to us why exactly it's retarded. Just because it doesn't support your favorite player's stats, it doesn't mean it's retarded.

[nba_55]

You're missing the point. The goal is to win, and part of doing that is preventing the other team from scoring. That is more difficilult off a missed fg than a made fg. In a league where an astounding amount of games are decided by 1 or 2 possessions, every missed shot can be significant.

If two players have a similar TS%, you want the player who misses fewer shots. Of course if the gap in TS% is huge, the additional missed shots may be nullified. I'm not saying that TS% is a bad metric, it just doesn't tell the whole story. It's best used in conjunction with raw fg%.

Do you have stats to show us teams score more after missed shots? I'm interessed to see if the gap between points after missed shots and points after made basket big.

[Dresta]

You're missing the point. The goal is to win, and part of doing that is preventing the other team from scoring. That is more difficilult off a missed fg than a made fg. In a league where an astounding amount of games are decided by 1 or 2 possessions, every missed shot can be significant.

If two players have a similar TS%, you want the player who misses fewer shots. Of course if the gap in TS% is huge, the additional missed shots may be nullified. I'm not saying that TS% is a bad metric, it just doesn't tell the whole story. It's best used in conjunction with raw fg%.
Yeah, this is a good point. Also, the TS% stat doesn't account for and1s, which if made, should be the same as a 3 pointer, not a two point fg and one made ft (as the latter adds extra in possessions used)

[Akhenaten]

So this is what basketball has become.

Ehh the game itself is great it's all the nonsense around it that's annoying

these so-called advanced stats is one the more annoying aspects of today's basketball. People think convolution = better or deeper analysis, 95% of people cant even understand these stupid "formulas" yet try to use them in arguments :facepalm

keep it simple stupids

[90sgoat]

Explain to us why exactly it's retarded. Just because it doesn't support your favorite player's stats, it doesn't mean it's retarded.

What is difficult to understand?

MJ shot 44,5% on almost only 2s. That is middle of the pack efficient, higher than Kobe's career average, MUCH higher than Allen Iverson's career average. much higher than guys like Baron Davis.

Why is MJ penalized for not shooting 3s? You guys are so autistic you can't see that 44,5% on 2s is fine, you can get a 2 easier than a 3.

MJ can get that 44,5% 2 point shot over and over, again and again, versus the whole team having to run plays to get a 3 on the same efficiency.

This is why MJ is 6/6 and live by the 3, die by the 3 teams have never succeeded outside Curry, who is arguably the greatest 3 point shooter of all time.

[GrapeApe]

Do you have stats to show us teams score more after missed shots? I'm interessed to see if the gap between points after missed shots and points after made basket big.

I'll have to see what I can find, but I have seen statistics and there is indeed a fairly sizeable gap. It's common sense though, when you consider the fact that it's much easier to score in transition off a missed shot and it's more difficult for the defense to get set. Almost every transition score happens off a missed shot or a turnover. It's nearly impossible to run after a made fg.

Even if there isn't a transition score, there's more likely to be a defensive mismatch. A defender retreating after a missed shot often has to pick up an offensive player that they wouldn't normally guard. Sometimes they can switch back during the possession, but sometimes the offense can exploit the mismatch. These might seem like minute details, but every possession in the NBA is valuable.

[nba_55]

What is difficult to understand?

MJ shot 44,5% on almost only 2s. That is middle of the pack efficient, higher than Kobe's career average, MUCH higher than Allen Iverson's career average. much higher than guys like Baron Davis.

Why is MJ penalized for not shooting 3s? You guys are so autistic you can't see that 44,5% on 2s is fine, you can get a 2 easier than a 3.

MJ can get that 44,5% 2 point shot over and over, again and again, versus the whole team having to run plays to get a 3 on the same efficiency.

This is why MJ is 6/6 and live by the 3, die by the 3 teams have never succeeded outside Curry, who is arguably the greatest 3 point shooter of all time.

I don't give a **** about MJ. Explain to me what exactly is wrong with TS% concept. Try to make your point without using MJ as the argument for any other player( like OP did).

[nba_55]

I'll have to see what I can find, but I have seen statistics and there is indeed a fairly sizeable gap. It's common sense though, when you consider the fact that it's much easier to score in transition off a missed shot and it's more difficult for the defense to get set. Almost every transition score happens off a missed shot or a turnover. It's nearly impossible to run after a made fg.

Even if there isn't a transition score, there's more likely to be a defensive mismatch. A defender retreating after a missed shot often has to pick up an offensive player that they wouldn't normally guard. Sometimes they can switch back during the possession, but sometimes the offense can exploit the mismatch. These might seem like minute details, but every possession in the NBA is valuable.

It does make sense, just wanted to see how big the gap was.

[Nash]

its also one more miss that gives the opponent a chance to score.

[HurricaneKid]

I'll have to see what I can find, but I have seen statistics and there is indeed a fairly sizeable gap. It's common sense though, when you consider the fact that it's much easier to score in transition off a missed shot and it's more difficult for the defense to get set. Almost every transition score happens off a missed shot or a turnover. It's nearly impossible to run after a made fg.

Even if there isn't a transition score, there's more likely to be a defensive mismatch. A defender retreating after a missed shot often has to pick up an offensive player that they wouldn't normally guard. Sometimes they can switch back during the possession, but sometimes the offense can exploit the mismatch. These might seem like minute details, but every possession in the NBA is valuable.

eFG is 51.5 off rebounds and 47.6 after made baskets. So you absolutely have a point. But you are also neglecting to acknowledge that there are significant opportunities for offensive rebounds when you score more from 3. Offensive rebounding league wide is around 25%, down from 30% as more and more, teams attempt to take away transition at the expense of off reb.

A lot of this just depends on personnel. Kanter, Tristan Thompson, etc are really effective off rebounders. If you don't have someone like that or are running a small ball lineup your off reb% won't be as good but you will defend transition o better.

It's notable that eFG% goes way up after offensive rebounds too.

Nyloncalculus has a really good article on this as small ball lineups have completely altered theses calculations.

[GrapeApe]

its also one more miss that gives the opponent a chance to score.

Actually, possessions aren't directly affected because you gain possession after a made shot. A team could hold the opponent to 30% shooting and have the same number of possessions as if the opponent shot 50%. Missed shots create empty offensive possessions, but they can be nullified with 3 pointers. The issue is defense, where a missed shot gives the opposing offense a better chance to score.

To illustrate with an extreme example, one team scores 90 points on all 3 point attempts, shooting 30/80. Another team scores 90 on all 2 pointers, shooting 45/80. Their offensive efficiency and defensive possessions are identical. However, one team has 15 more defensive possessions in which they cannot set their defense and are exposed to transition scores. In all likelihood, that team would allow more points to the opponent.

Of course there's other factors such as rebounding, turnovers, etc....but the point was to show the flaw in marginalizing missed shots.

[GrapeApe]

eFG is 51.5 off rebounds and 47.6 after made baskets. So you absolutely have a point. But you are also neglecting to acknowledge that there are significant opportunities for offensive rebounds when you score more from 3. Offensive rebounding league wide is around 25%, down from 30% as more and more, teams attempt to take away transition at the expense of off reb.

A lot of this just depends on personnel. Kanter, Tristan Thompson, etc are really effective off rebounders. If you don't have someone like that or are running a small ball lineup your off reb% won't be as good but you will defend transition o better.

It's notable that eFG% goes way up after offensive rebounds too.

Nyloncalculus has a really good article on this as small ball lineups have completely altered theses calculations.

Thanks for that info. That's exactly what I was looking for. :cheers:

You're right that rebounding is a huge factor, and missed 3's lead to long rebounds and potentially more offensive rebound opportunities. It just goes to show how complicated it can be to analyze the different nuances of the game, and that goes back to my point that one stat alone (such as TS%) never tells the whole story.

[tmacattack33]

TS percentage says those 3 extra misses are of no consequence because the point averages are the same per shot attempt. Averages and percentages are NOT the same. Missed baskets whether 3 point shots or at the rim are potential break situations, a made basket is not. 6 of 9 on three is NOT the same PERCENTAGE efficiency as 9/9 on twos because the points average out to the same.



It is if you simply divide FTA by 2, so 4 FTA = 2 fga ..simple

A missed shot is also an opportunity for an offensive rebound. So it evens out.

Edit: Late comment. As i see others have already discussed this in this thread...my bad.