Efficiency Changes for Perimeter Players after Rules Changes

[Roundball_Rock]

How much did the rules changes before the 05' season change efficiency for perimeter stars? The numbers here are pretty stark. The defense to this is these changes came after scoring dipped to an all-time low for the shot clock era. It is striking to me that basically every star today has high efficiency numbers relative to past eras--and this trend began with this change in the mid-2000's.

eFG% used since FT % has nothing to do with these rules changes. Using three year averages on either side, unless a player was a rookie (for obvious reasons). All these players were top 10 in scoring at some point during this time frame, except for Nash, who won MVP in 05' and 06' and had to be included in the sample.

What is your take on the impact of the rules changes?

eFG % for Perimeter Stars

Kobe 2002-2004: 47.8%
Kobe 2005-2007: 49.3% Iverson 2002-2004: 42.5%
Iverson 2005-2007: 46.2%
Arenas 2003-2004: 47.0%
Arenas 2005-2007: 49.7%
T Mac 2002-2004: 48.8%
T Mac 2005-2007: 46.6%
Pierce 2002-2004: 46.8%
Pierce 2005-2007: 50.4%
Redd 2002-2004: 52.4% (11 PPG in 02’, 15 PPG in 03’)
Redd 2005-2007: 49.9%
Carter 2002-2004: 46.9%
Carter 2005-2007: 48.9%
Davis 2002-2004: 47.2%
Davis 2005-2007: 46.6%
Peja 2002-2004: 55.5%
Peja 2005-2007: 52.2%
Allen 2002-2004: 52.8%
Allen 2005-2007: 51.8%
Marbury 2002-2004: 46.6%
Marbury 2005-2007: 48.9%
Nash 2002-2004: 53.3%
Nash 2005-2007: 58.5%

[SouBeachTalents]

It wasn't just efficiency, like a dozen perimeter player who were elite for years all had their highest scoring seasons in either '06 or '07. Hell LeBron had his highest scoring season his 3rd year, still pretty far removed from his peak

[Roundball_Rock]

It wasn't just efficiency, like a dozen perimeter player who were elite for years all had their highest scoring seasons in either '06 or '07. Hell LeBron had his highest scoring season his 3rd year, still pretty far removed from his peak

Yup. Those numbers are stark too--their efficiency improved significantly while scoring much more. Here are some numbers on that I gathered for another thread. The first tracks perimeter scoring over time (mid-2000's omitted because they are covered later), the second hones in on 2004-2006.

Top Perimeter Scorers in Select Years (ranked in top 10)

1991: MJ 31, Wilkins 27, Mullin 25, Miller 25
1993: MJ 33, Wilkins 30, Dumars 23, Manning 23
1994: Wilkins 26, Richmond 23, Pippen 22
1996: MJ 30, Richmond 23
1998: MJ 29, Richmond 23, Abdur-Rahim 22, Rice 22, Iverson 22
2011: KD 28, LeBron 27, Carmelo 26, Wade 26, Kobe 25, Rose 25, Ellis 24, Martin 23
2014: KD 32, Carmelo 27, LeBron 27, Westbrook 24, Carmelo 23, Williams 21
2020: Harden 34, Beal 31, Young 30, Lillard 29, Luka 29, Westbrook 28, Kawhi 27, Booker 26

This speaks for itself (23 PPG being enough to be the #2 perimeter scorer in the 90's when they would likely be outside the top 15 today...) but the to hammer it home let's look at perimeter scoring before and after handchecking (before the 05' season):

2004: T Mac 28, Peja 24, Kobe 24, Pierce 23, Davis 23, Carter 23, Redd 22
2005: Iverson 31, Kobe 28, LeBron 27, T Mac 26, Arenas 26, Carter 24, Wade 24, Allen 24
2006: Kobe 35, Iverson 33, LeBron 31, Arenas 29, Wade 27, Pierce 27, Carmelo 27, Redd 25, Allen 25

[Phoenix]

Even though he wasn't 'technically' a perimeter player, Dirk as a stretch 4 should be looked at too. I'm going to start from 2000 when he started dropping 20+ points a game, so that the numbers aren't as impacted by his first two seasons:

2000-2005( 5 seasons) 23.6ppg on 47/38/56 splits

2005-2006 - 26.6 on 48/41/90 splits

Now usually, I would chalk that upswing to a player reaching his peak and Dirk was 27 this year. But when you look at it in the context of everyone else getting boosts? You'd have to throw him in with every other 'perimeter-centric' scorer post-rules change.

To me, the most obvious case is Iverson. From 1996-2005 he was 27.4ppg on 42/31/77. And this includes 2 seasons where he shot under 40%( or at 40% if you want to round up .398 in 2002). From 2006? 33ppg on 45/32/81. And this was 31 year old Iverson who by this point, wasn't 'quite' as fast as MVP prime A.I. But the rule changes allowed him to produce a career high PPG on 3 percentage points higher than the first 9 years of his career. In 2001 as the MVP, he put up 31ppg on 42%. That is peak Iverson we're talking about there.

[Roundball_Rock]

Now usually, I would chalk that upswing to a player reaching his peak and Dirk was 27 this year. But when you look at it in the context of everyone else getting boosts? You'd have to throw him in with every other 'perimeter-centric' scorer post-rules change.

Good points. I thought about Dirk but figured the sample was big enough as is but he fits the same trend.


To me, the most obvious case is Iverson. From 1996-2005 he was 27.4ppg on 42/31/77. And this includes 2 seasons where he shot under 40%( or at 40% if you want to round up .398 in 2002). From 2006? 33ppg on 45/32/81. And this was 31 year old Iverson who by this point, wasn't 'quite' as fast as MVP prime A.I. But the rule changes allowed him to produce a career high PPG on 3 percentage points higher than the first 9 years of his career. In 2001 as the MVP, he put up 31ppg on 42%. That is peak Iverson we're talking about there.

Yeah, I think Iverson is Exhibit A. He was 26.4 in 04' on 38.7% FG but 30.7 on 42.4% and 33.0 on 44.7% in 05' and 06' respectively. So he gained 9 PPG and 6% in a two year span--past his real (if not statistical) peak.

Exhibit B is LeBron IMO. He scored 31.4 at 21 years old (06') yet in his peak, MVP years in Cleveland was at 28.4 and 29.7 and in Miami he was at 27 each year from 2011-2013. This is the span he won 4 MVP's in 5 years. Was he really a better scorer in 2006 than 2012? Of course not.

Time and again 06' turns out to be the high water mark. It seems that is when offenses unlocked the most potential of the changes--and after that defenses began fighting back and reducing the free-for-all. Still, efficiency has never come close to reaching its pre-rules levels in the 90's and 00's. Harden is my favorite example. He is a 57% TS shooter in his prime in the playoffs--and he is considered a choker by many. Those numbers would be considered awesome in the 90's or first half of the 00's (prime MJ was 58% TS in the playoffs as a comparison).

[iamgine]

There were a rule change in 01-02 season. Zone defense was no longer illegal. Before, you had to play your man 1 on 1.

I think the rule change in '05 was because the rule change in '02 had impeded the offense way too much, especially in '04.

[Phoenix]

Tmac had serious beef with the zone:

https://www.tampabay.com/archive/2003/11/08/magic-t-mac-not-in-the-zone/

"McGrady has admitted he is "clueless" about how to attack zones, and the Timberwolves kept the pressure. Swarmed by double- and triple-teams, McGrady was held scoreless in the first half on four missed shots and two turnovers. He did not score until converting a putback with 6:47 left in the third with Minnesota leading by 21. McGrady took himself out a little more than five minutes later."

From one of the most gifted pure scorers of the era. I do have to wonder if not having been exposed to them at an elite level ( let's say D1 college ball), that he was like a deer caught in headlights when he faced them in the NBA. And, shooting is how to best attack the zone. Catch and shoots, coming off screens, shooting out of the triple threat. Any scorer standing out front and center of a zone dribble dribble dribble looking for a seam to get to his scoring spots is gonna have trouble.

[guy]

Efficiency also won't capture that theoretically it was easier to create shots for yourself. With both sets of rules, the usual case of the higher the volume, the lower the efficiency still applies (at least for 2-pters). I don't see in any of those examples that that was clearly the case, but I'd chalk that up more to team situation / individual decline.

And yes, FT% has nothing to do with these rule changes, but overall scoring efficiency does and FTs play a huge part in that otherwise I'm pretty sure someone like James Harden would not be considered efficient at all

[Carbine]

There were a rule change in 01-02 season. Zone defense was no longer illegal. Before, you had to play your man 1 on 1.

I think the rule change in '05 was because the rule change in '02 had impeded the offense way too much, especially in '04.

As I understand it watching '91 and '92 playoff runs, you couldn't double team an off ball player. You could trap a pick and role, for example, though. Or double team the post.

[guy]

Time and again 06' turns out to be the high water mark. It seems that is when offenses unlocked the most potential of the changes--and after that defenses began fighting back and reducing the free-for-all. Still, efficiency has never come close to reaching its pre-rules levels in the 90's and 00's. Harden is my favorite example. He is a 57% TS shooter in his prime in the playoffs--and he is considered a choker by many. Those numbers would be considered awesome in the 90's or first half of the 00's (prime MJ was 58% TS in the playoffs as a comparison).

Harden is considered a choker and deservingly cause he's routinely pretty terrible in the biggest playoff games and moments, which is the exact opposite of Jordan - not because his average play in the playoffs was necessarily bad. Also, Jordan was doing it on more FGAs and less FTAs than Harden and still with the harder rules of the 90s, not to mention Harden has played higher % of his total playoff games in earlier rounds. Its not really comparable regardless of what the numbers say.

[Roundball_Rock]

Tmac had serious beef with the zone:

T Mac may be the only perimeter player from that era (along with VC, but he is a unique, odd case) whose best scoring years came before the changes. He was 32 PPG in 03', 28 PPG in 04' but 26 PPG in 05' and 24 PPG in 04'. So he lost 8 PPG from his peak by 06', when 06' itself was the peak for many of these players.


Efficiency also won't capture that theoretically it was easier to create shots for yourself. With both sets of rules, the usual case of the higher the volume, the lower the efficiency still applies (at least for 2-pters). I don't see in any of those examples that that was clearly the case, but I'd chalk that up more to team situation / individual decline.

We can check what happened to FGA. I'm on PP's page so start with him.

Pierce 2002-2004: 19.4
Pierce 2005-2007: 17.0

Kobe 2002-2004: 20.7
Kobe 2005-2007: 23.6

Iverson 2002-2004: 24.9
Iverson 2005-2007: 23.4

Arenas 2003-2004: 15.3
Arenas 2005-2007: 20.3

T Mac 2002-2004: 22.8
T Mac 2005-2007: 21.2

Allen 2002-2004: 17.6
Allen 2005-2007: 19.7

Marbury 2002-2004: 17.7
Marbury 2005-2007: 14.0

Nash 2002-2004: 12.6
Nash 2005-2007: 12.5

Redd 2002-2004: 13.1
Redd 2005-2007: 19.0

Peja 2002-2004: 15.8
Peja 2005-2007: 14.9

Carter 2002-2004: 20.0
Carter 2005-2007: 20.1

Davis 2002-2004: 17.8
Davis 2005-2007: 16.2


Oddly, more of these players saw decreases than increases (with Carter, Nash staying the same). Some of this is due to using a 3 year rolling average. For instance, AI was 27.8, 23.7, 23.4, 24.2, 25.3, 20.2. So he had a jump in 05' and 06' but the sharp drop in 07' takes that two year average of 24.8 to 23.9 over three years. The obvious driver of this is his trade to Denver. He averaged 24.4 in 15 games in PHI; 18.9 in 50 games in DEN.


And yes, FT% has nothing to do with these rule changes, but overall scoring efficiency does and FTs play a huge part

It would be interesting to do the OP and see the change in FT's. I just wanted to keep the scope narrow here but I suspect you are right that today's players get a lot more FT's compared to their past peers.


Harden is considered a choker and deservingly cause he's routinely pretty terrible in the biggest playoff games and moments, which is the exact opposite of Jordan - not because his average play in the playoffs was necessarily bad

My point is 57% TS isn't great today but would be awesome in the 90's. The most efficient 90's superstar in TS in the playoffs (prime #'s) was Barkley at 58.3%; Harden is at 56.9%. That's not a large gap. The problem? The leader in this era is Kawhi at 62.8% (as a 1st option). So 57% doesn't look great in today's era where scoring and efficiency is goosed and Harden is 6% behind the best in class. Harden probably is average in this regard, although 57% him looks bad compared to his RS level. http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?481158-2010-s-Stars-Playoff-Efficiency-Versus-Regular-Season-Efficiency&p=14027019#post14027019

[tpols]

looking at the list, the slashers got the biggest boost. shooters actually got worse in a couple instances.

[HBK_Kliq_2]

Its always tough to tell if its worse defense or just better talent pool and designed offenses. For an example, the 1960s/1970s era have horrible efficiency but that doesn't necessary mean it was loaded with great wing defenders, most people actually say the opposite was true.

Nash/Kobe just became much better players when they left Dirk/Shaq.

Mcgrady, Ray Allen, Peja actually get worse by efficiency.

[Shooter]

There were a rule change in 01-02 season. Zone defense was no longer illegal. Before, you had to play your man 1 on 1.

I think the rule change in '05 was because the rule change in '02 had impeded the offense way too much, especially in '04.

Yep.

Why do you think MJ retired one more time?

[Shooter]

It's almost as if efficiency rises as talent rises?

[Roundball_Rock]

Its always tough to tell if its worse defense or just better talent pool and designed offenses.


It's almost as if efficiency rises as talent rises?

Those arguments can be made across eras (it is all subjective) but what makes the cases in the OP interesting is it's the same players in the same era. Magically efficiency goes up overnight by large margins for nearly all these players, even a declining player like Iverson notorious for being inefficient.

One thing to keep in mind when comparing efficiency across eras is 20th century eras featured high volume big men who played in the post. Centers are almost extinct today and PF's shoot threes these days. So the actual difference in perimeter player efficiency is a lot bigger than whatever the league average in 1970, 1980, or 1990 is compared to the 2010's since the overall average includes those high efficiency post players.

[Phoenix]

T Mac may be the only perimeter player from that era (along with VC, but he is a unique, odd case) whose best scoring years came before the changes. He was 32 PPG in 03', 28 PPG in 04' but 26 PPG in 05' and 24 PPG in 04'. So he lost 8 PPG from his peak by 06', when 06' itself was the peak for many of these players.





In fairness though, Tmac after 2003 was never the same because of his back. Even in that season he was having some issues but they just got worse and worse over the next years. You could even see his shot became more of a line drive. His game should have adjusted and scaled up as well as any of the elite perimeter guys at that time. Really bad timing for him because he should have been feasting on the new rules as much as guys like Kobe and Iverson.

[guy]

T Mac may be the only perimeter player from that era (along with VC, but he is a unique, odd case) whose best scoring years came before the changes. He was 32 PPG in 03', 28 PPG in 04' but 26 PPG in 05' and 24 PPG in 04'. So he lost 8 PPG from his peak by 06', when 06' itself was the peak for many of these players.



We can check what happened to FGA. I'm on PP's page so start with him.

Pierce 2002-2004: 19.4
Pierce 2005-2007: 17.0

Kobe 2002-2004: 20.7
Kobe 2005-2007: 23.6

Iverson 2002-2004: 24.9
Iverson 2005-2007: 23.4

Arenas 2003-2004: 15.3
Arenas 2005-2007: 20.3

T Mac 2002-2004: 22.8
T Mac 2005-2007: 21.2

Allen 2002-2004: 17.6
Allen 2005-2007: 19.7

Marbury 2002-2004: 17.7
Marbury 2005-2007: 14.0

Nash 2002-2004: 12.6
Nash 2005-2007: 12.5

Redd 2002-2004: 13.1
Redd 2005-2007: 19.0

Peja 2002-2004: 15.8
Peja 2005-2007: 14.9

Carter 2002-2004: 20.0
Carter 2005-2007: 20.1

Davis 2002-2004: 17.8
Davis 2005-2007: 16.2


Oddly, more of these players saw decreases than increases (with Carter, Nash staying the same). Some of this is due to using a 3 year rolling average. For instance, AI was 27.8, 23.7, 23.4, 24.2, 25.3, 20.2. So he had a jump in 05' and 06' but the sharp drop in 07' takes that two year average of 24.8 to 23.9 over three years. The obvious driver of this is his trade to Denver. He averaged 24.4 in 15 games in PHI; 18.9 in 50 games in DEN.



It would be interesting to do the OP and see the change in FT's. I just wanted to keep the scope narrow here but I suspect you are right that today's players get a lot more FT's compared to their past peers.



My point is 57% TS isn't great today but would be awesome in the 90's. The most efficient 90's superstar in TS in the playoffs (prime #'s) was Barkley at 58.3%; Harden is at 56.9%. That's not a large gap. The problem? The leader in this era is Kawhi at 62.8% (as a 1st option). So 57% doesn't look great in today's era where scoring and efficiency is goosed and Harden is 6% behind the best in class. Harden probably is average in this regard, although 57% him looks bad compared to his RS level. http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?481158-2010-s-Stars-Playoff-Efficiency-Versus-Regular-Season-Efficiency&p=14027019#post14027019

T-Mac pretty clearly lost a step during that time. Like I said, team situation differences and individual declines have an impact as well so I didn't expect too much of a correlation. Point is they probably took more shots in that time period then they would've if the previous rules were in place.

Harden has the exact same career playoff TS% as Lebron, who most people don't consider a choker overall for his career. Point is, his TS% has little if not nothing to do with his perception as a choker.

[Phoenix]

Those arguments can be made across eras (it is all subjective) but what makes the cases in the OP interesting is it's the same players in the same era. Magically efficiency goes up overnight by large margins for nearly all these players, even a declining player like Iverson notorious for being inefficient.

One thing to keep in mind when comparing efficiency across eras is 20th century eras featured high volume big men who played in the post. Centers are almost extinct today and PF's shoot threes these days. So the actual difference in perimeter player efficiency is a lot bigger than whatever the league average in 1970, 1980, or 1990 is compared to the 2010's since the overall average includes those high efficiency post players.

That point you're replying to about efficiency rising with talent makes zero sense in this context, but it wasn't meant to. Literally EVERYONE from 2004 on your list bumped up the following season regardless of what point in their careers they were. Iverson at 31 didn't 'suddenly' get better in talent and score on higher volume and efficiency than ever before. Lebron scored 31ppg and he was more raw offensively that year than he was 6 years later scoring 27 a game, as you said. Kobe in 2004 in the first season after Shaq is like 28ppg. The next season 35?! Pierce scaled up. Dirk scaled up. Arenas scaled up. That isn't 'talent' just happening to rise all at the same time and experience the same boosts in scoring/efficiency across the board. That would be an unprecedented phenomenon.

[Roundball_Rock]

In fairness though, Tmac after 2003 was never the same because of his back.

True. It is theoretically possible he could have gained efficiency on lower volume but his volume didn't decrease that much (-1.6 FGA). So as you note, one of the outliers has a clear explanation.


team situation differences and individual declines have an impact as well so I didn't expect too much of a correlation

Yeah--that is why I like using large samples of stars so we can see overall trends. It is hard to deny the efficiency jumps in the OP, for example. The FGA numbers were more inconsistent, probably because they are more sensitive to team changes.


Harden has the exact same career playoff TS% as Lebron, who most people don't consider a choker overall for his career.

Either way, 57% isn't a big deal these days:

Playoff, Prime TS % (RS % in parentheses)

LeBron 06’-16’: 56.7% (59.2%)
LeBron 06’-18’: 57.9% (59.6%)
Durant 10’-19’: 59.7% (62.6%)
George 13’-19’: 57.1% (56.5%)
Kawhi 14’-19’: 61.9% (60.2%)
Kawhi 16’-19’: 62.8% (60.9%)
Butler 15’-19’: 55.5% (57.9%)
Curry 14’-19’: 61.5% (64.2%)
Westbrook 11’-19’: 51.1% (53.6%)
Westbrook 17’-18’: 50.2% (54.0%)
Paul 08’-16’: 58.4% (58.5%)
Lillard 14’-19’: 54.4% (57.6%)
Irving 13’-19’: 56.0% (57.1%)
Irving 19’: 48.8% (59.2%)
Lowry 15’-19’: 55.1% (57.7%)
Giannis 17’-19’: 58.0% (61.3%)
Davis 14’-19’: 59.3% (58.7%)
Bosh 06’-16’: 55.3% (57.7%)
Aldridge 12’-19’: 51.8% (54.5%)
Embiid 18’-19’: 54.1% (58.4%)
Howard 07’-14’: 61.3% (60.5%)
DeRozan 14’-19’: 50.3% (54.2%)
Harden 13’-19’: 56.9% (61.0%)
Klay 15’-19’: 56.6% (58.9%)
Wade 06’-12’: 56.6% (57.1%)

55% is bad here but would be good in the 90's; 57% would be awesome in the 90's. Irrespective of labels, that was the point--softer defenses=goosed numbers (or, if you agree with the other two posters, more talent is driving the better numbers).


That isn't 'talent' just happening to rise all at the same time and experience the same boosts in scoring/efficiency across the board. That would be an unprecedented phenomenon.

Yeah--it is a clear rules driven "rising tide" lifting all boats.

[warriorfan]

TS% is the gold standard for measuring scoring efficiency. It’s been like that for over a decade. Op is a huge f.aggot.

[Roundball_Rock]

Yes, because hand-checking, etc. impacts FT %. :lol But hey, let's include FT % so if a player's FT % decreased it would obscure the increase in FG % and defeat the purpose of the entire exercise. I know you can't grasp this but everyone else in the thread can.

[insidious301]

Some of those players in the 2000's would score 29 - 30 PPG in 1991 IMO. Dropping Mcgrady, Kobe, Iverson, LeBron and other high volume scorers in that year, I could see it. Not taking anything away from Wilkins but that's just what I think. Not all but some of those players did get better with reference to your OP. Nash is someone who I think benefited from both the rules and D'Antoni. I might be in the minority but I also think he's overrated. Kobe, Redd, Pierce, Carter, Arenas all hit their best around the mid-to-late 00s. What do their numbers say in the playoffs?


TS% is the gold standard for measuring scoring efficiency. It’s been like that for over a decade. Op is a huge f.aggot.

What's with the hate? :oldlol: You disrespect Roundball_Rock on the regular.

[Roundball_Rock]

Nash didn't change much as a scorer. His efficiency rose but his volume was so low the extra 5% in efficiency translated into only 1 PPG.

Nash 2002-2004: 16.7 PPG on 53.3% eFG, 12.6 FGA
Nash 2005-2007: 17.7 PPG on 58.5% eFG, 12.5 FGA

The change was in APG. He went to 11.2 in Phoenix (05'-07') from 7.9 his last three years in Dallas.


Kobe, Redd, Pierce, Carter, Arenas all hit their best around the mid-to-late 00s. What do their numbers say in the playoffs?

Not sure. The problem with playoff numbers is 1) small sample sizes 2) highly dependent on defenses a player draws. So if we are looking at three years, we may have only 4 series to work with and if 2-3 of those were against elite defenses that is going to be different than if they play soft defenses. Then you have missed playoffs. Pierce didn't make the PO in 06' or 07' and played only one round in 05'; Carter missed it in 02', 03', 04', Redd only played in 06' after the changes, etc. FWIW, though:

Pierce 02'-04': 24.9 PPG on 43.8% eFG (30 games)
Pierce 05': 22.9 PPG on 54.3% eFG (7 games)

Redd was a role player in his first PO but we can use his last two appearences.

Redd 04': 18.0 PPG on 44.6% eFG
Redd 06': 27.2 PPG on 56.5% eFG

Kobe 02'-04': 27.0 PPG on 45.5% eFG
Kobe 06'-07': 29.9 PPG on 52.4% eFG

Arenas' only PO appearances came after the rules changes.

In these cases the efficiency skyrocketed. Small sample sizes, but interesting it happened in each case.

[HBK_Kliq_2]

T Mac may be the only perimeter player from that era (along with VC, but he is a unique, odd case) whose best scoring years came before the changes. He was 32 PPG in 03', 28 PPG in 04' but 26 PPG in 05' and 24 PPG in 04'. So he lost 8 PPG from his peak by 06', when 06' itself was the peak for many of these players.



We can check what happened to FGA. I'm on PP's page so start with him.

Pierce 2002-2004: 19.4
Pierce 2005-2007: 17.0

Kobe 2002-2004: 20.7
Kobe 2005-2007: 23.6

Iverson 2002-2004: 24.9
Iverson 2005-2007: 23.4

Arenas 2003-2004: 15.3
Arenas 2005-2007: 20.3

T Mac 2002-2004: 22.8
T Mac 2005-2007: 21.2

Allen 2002-2004: 17.6
Allen 2005-2007: 19.7

Marbury 2002-2004: 17.7
Marbury 2005-2007: 14.0

Nash 2002-2004: 12.6
Nash 2005-2007: 12.5

Redd 2002-2004: 13.1
Redd 2005-2007: 19.0

Peja 2002-2004: 15.8
Peja 2005-2007: 14.9

Carter 2002-2004: 20.0
Carter 2005-2007: 20.1

Davis 2002-2004: 17.8
Davis 2005-2007: 16.2


Oddly, more of these players saw decreases than increases (with Carter, Nash staying the same). Some of this is due to using a 3 year rolling average. For instance, AI was 27.8, 23.7, 23.4, 24.2, 25.3, 20.2. So he had a jump in 05' and 06' but the sharp drop in 07' takes that two year average of 24.8 to 23.9 over three years. The obvious driver of this is his trade to Denver. He averaged 24.4 in 15 games in PHI; 18.9 in 50 games in DEN.



It would be interesting to do the OP and see the change in FT's. I just wanted to keep the scope narrow here but I suspect you are right that today's players get a lot more FT's compared to their past peers.



My point is 57% TS isn't great today but would be awesome in the 90's. The most efficient 90's superstar in TS in the playoffs (prime #'s) was Barkley at 58.3%; Harden is at 56.9%. That's not a large gap. The problem? The leader in this era is Kawhi at 62.8% (as a 1st option). So 57% doesn't look great in today's era where scoring and efficiency is goosed and Harden is 6% behind the best in class. Harden probably is average in this regard, although 57% him looks bad compared to his RS level. http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?481158-2010-s-Stars-Playoff-Efficiency-Versus-Regular-Season-Efficiency&p=14027019#post14027019

The problem with Harden is his playoff decline. If Harden was at 57% TS in regular season and stayed at 57% TS in playoffs, I don't think he gets the choking label. What's happening is Harden is 60-62% TS in regular season and having a massive drop to 55-57% TS in most of his Rockets playoff runs. Kevin Durant while with Thunder had this exact same problem.

Meanwhile, Kawhi is having a title run at 62% TS? So he's basically shooting like Harden does in regular season but doing it in 2nd, 3rd, 4th rounds when teams are heavy game planning and seeing you 6-7 different times. It shows that Kawhi's scoring is much more resilient. Kawhi's scoring is much more difficult to stop against stronger competition.

[Roundball_Rock]

If he shot 57% in the 90's no one would care, even if there was a 4% decline. That was my point--the norm has increased so much that what would be great then is average now.


It shows that Kawhi's scoring is much more resilient. Kawhi's scoring is much more difficult to stop against stronger competition.

Kawhi is the best in class in efficiency among this era's stars. A 6% gap between him and Harden is large--but Harden is mid-pack. There is more variance among stars today. Here is what it looked like in the 90's:

Barkley 87’-95’: 58.3% (62.6%)
Malone 88’-99’: 53.1% (59.1%)
Ewing 88’-97’: 52.8% (56.3%)
Robinson 90’-98’: 54.9% (59.0%)
Shaq 94’-05’: 56.7% (58.4%)
Mourning 94’-00’: 54.8% (58.7%)
Hakeem 86’-97’: 57.8% (55.8%)
Jordan 87’-96’: 57.7% (58.6%)
Drexler 88’-95’: 54.1% (55.3%)
Harden 13’-19’: 56.9% (61.0%)
Wilkins 86’-94’: 50.9% (54.4%)
Pippen 91’-98’: 52.1% (54.6%)
Pippen 94’: 52.1% (54.4%)
Hill 95’-00’: 51.6% (54.4%)
Payton 94’-02’: 53.5% (53.7%)
Penny 95’-97’: 57.2% (58.9%)
Stockton 88’-98’: 57.3% (62.0%)
T. Hardaway 91’-98’: 52.9% (53.8%)

So the gap between Barkley and Wilkins was 7%. In this era the gap between #1 option Kawhi and DeRozan is 13%, Westbrook 12% (13% if comparing to Westbrook as a #1 option).

Harden, if in the 90's, looks great.

Harden is comparable to his peers:

DeRozan 14’-19’: 50.3% (54.2%)
Harden 13’-19’: 56.9% (61.0%)
Klay 15’-19’: 56.6% (58.9%)
Wade 06’-12’: 56.6% (57.1%)

The only reason he sticks out is, as you noted, his high RS baseline but he is more efficient than Wade (who is considered a very efficient player), Harden and much more efficient than DeRozan.

[3ball]

thread cliffs

pippen's efficiency/scoring was bad regardless of era

and Jordan would have better efficiency than lebron in today's game, while averaging 10 more ppg (that's 5 more than the current 5 ppg gap in playoffs or regular season bulls career)

[SouBeachTalents]

thread cliffs

pippen's efficiency/scoring was bad regardless of era

and Jordan would have better efficiency than lebron in today's game, while averaging 10 more ppg (that's 5 more than the current 5 ppg gap in playoffs or regular season bulls career)
:oldlol: Jesus Christ

[HBK_Kliq_2]

If he shot 57% in the 90's no one would care, even if there was a 4% decline. That was my point--the norm has increased so much that what would be great then is average now.



Kawhi is the best in class in efficiency among this era's stars. A 6% gap between him and Harden is large--but Harden is mid-pack. There is more variance among stars today. Here is what it looked like in the 90's:

Barkley 87’-95’: 58.3% (62.6%)
Malone 88’-99’: 53.1% (59.1%)
Ewing 88’-97’: 52.8% (56.3%)
Robinson 90’-98’: 54.9% (59.0%)
Shaq 94’-05’: 56.7% (58.4%)
Mourning 94’-00’: 54.8% (58.7%)
Hakeem 86’-97’: 57.8% (55.8%)
Jordan 87’-96’: 57.7% (58.6%)
Drexler 88’-95’: 54.1% (55.3%)
Harden 13’-19’: 56.9% (61.0%)
Wilkins 86’-94’: 50.9% (54.4%)
Pippen 91’-98’: 52.1% (54.6%)
Pippen 94’: 52.1% (54.4%)
Hill 95’-00’: 51.6% (54.4%)
Payton 94’-02’: 53.5% (53.7%)
Penny 95’-97’: 57.2% (58.9%)
Stockton 88’-98’: 57.3% (62.0%)
T. Hardaway 91’-98’: 52.9% (53.8%)

So the gap between Barkley and Wilkins was 7%. In this era the gap between #1 option Kawhi and DeRozan is 13%, Westbrook 12% (13% if comparing to Westbrook as a #1 option).

Harden, if in the 90's, looks great.

Harden is comparable to his peers:

DeRozan 14’-19’: 50.3% (54.2%)
Harden 13’-19’: 56.9% (61.0%)
Klay 15’-19’: 56.6% (58.9%)
Wade 06’-12’: 56.6% (57.1%)

The only reason he sticks out is, as you noted, his high RS baseline but he is more efficient than Wade (who is considered a very efficient player), Harden and much more efficient than DeRozan.

Yes but Jordan is playing in finals 6 times and conference finals 8 times during that span? So his TS is expected to fall off some.

Harden on the other hand has only played in two conference finals and the rest were 1st round or 2nd round knockouts. Harden had so many years when he was bounced out 2nd round or earlier. 13 conference finals games and the rest all 2nd or 1st round knockouts. So from that perspective, harden shouldn't have as big of a drop off as Jordan.

[HBK_Kliq_2]

thread cliffs

pippen's efficiency/scoring was bad regardless of era

and Jordan would have better efficiency than lebron in today's game, while averaging 10 more ppg (that's 5 more than the current 5 ppg gap in playoffs or regular season bulls career)

League average TS

1991 .534

1992 .531

1993 .536

Pippen TS in 1991/1992 playoffs was 55% and peaked at 56.4. He was above averaged efficiency the first 2 titles.

The 3rd title, Pippen had a big drop off at 50.4% TS which puts him at -3% TS for league average. Most players get tired on the 3rd of a 3peat, Kobe had bad efficiency in the 2002 WCF vs kings as well.

[Shooter]

thread cliffs

pippen's efficiency/scoring was bad regardless of era

and Jordan would have better efficiency than lebron in today's game, while averaging 10 more ppg (that's 5 more than the current 5 ppg gap in playoffs or regular season bulls career)

Fantasy (above) vs Reality (below):

https://i.postimg.cc/L4Ttjkzw/Shrug6911.png

[warriorfan]

Some of those players in the 2000's would score 29 - 30 PPG in 1991 IMO. Dropping Mcgrady, Kobe, Iverson, LeBron and other high volume scorers in that year, I could see it. Not taking anything away from Wilkins but that's just what I think. Not all but some of those players did get better with reference to your OP. Nash is someone who I think benefited from both the rules and D'Antoni. I might be in the minority but I also think he's overrated. Kobe, Redd, Pierce, Carter, Arenas all hit their best around the mid-to-late 00s. What do their numbers say in the playoffs?



What's with the hate? :oldlol: You disrespect Roundball_Rock on the regular.

He’s the most disingenuous poster around and that is saying something. His posts are full of shitty arbitrary numbers cherry picked from basketball reference and have zero insight. 100% of his posts are an offshoot of his warped agenda about how Scottie Pippen was some sort of superstar, which is an offshoot of his Jordan agenda. He is basically a huge f.ucking loser who doesn’t know two shits about basketball and clutters the forum with a bunch of intellectually dishonest nonsense.

[insidious301]

Nash didn't change much as a scorer. His efficiency rose but his volume was so low the extra 5% in efficiency translated into only 1 PPG.

You are right, he didn't. But that 5% increase is a big deal. Moreso now that you are saying his volume was almost identical. Great player but overrated because of SSOL and no handchecking. The numbers you posted illuminate much of what I thought. Thanks.



Not sure. The problem with playoff numbers is 1) small sample sizes 2) highly dependent on defenses a player draws. So if we are looking at three years, we may have only 4 series to work with and if 2-3 of those were against elite defenses that is going to be different than if they play soft defenses. Then you have missed playoffs. Pierce didn't make the PO in 06' or 07' and played only one round in 05'; Carter missed it in 02', 03', 04', Redd only played in 06' after the changes, etc. FWIW, though:

Pierce 02'-04': 24.9 PPG on 43.8% eFG (30 games)
Pierce 05': 22.9 PPG on 54.3% eFG (7 games)

Redd was a role player in his first PO but we can use his last two appearences.

Redd 04': 18.0 PPG on 44.6% eFG
Redd 06': 27.2 PPG on 56.5% eFG

Kobe 02'-04': 27.0 PPG on 45.5% eFG
Kobe 06'-07': 29.9 PPG on 52.4% eFG

Arenas' only PO appearances came after the rules changes.

In these cases the efficiency skyrocketed. Small sample sizes, but interesting it happened in each case.

Would you agrue most of those players "primed" in the mid and late 2000s? Just by watching them play it is obvious to me. I don't disagree they benefited from the rules changes however them becoming better players can also be true. Kobe for example was at his best coincidentally from 05-10. Redd's numbers in the playoffs are crazy though. I had forgotten how good he was in 2006.


He’s the most disingenuous poster around and that is saying something. His posts are full of shitty arbitrary numbers cherry picked from basketball reference and have zero insight. 100% of his posts are an offshoot of his warped agenda about how Scottie Pippen was some sort of superstar, which is an offshoot of his Jordan agenda. He is basically a huge f.ucking loser who doesn’t know two shits about basketball and clutters the forum with a bunch of intellectually dishonest nonsense.

Roundball_Rock is a Pippen fan and Jordan denigrater? A known troll too? Doesn't seem all that bad from my vantage point, but I just started posting again. You probably would know more than I do.

[Roundball_Rock]

You are quoting a poster who has been banned multiple times for trolling as some sort of authority on posting...

Pippen was a superstar, unlike a guy like Miller who Warriorfan, his alt and various accounts all promote, as a comp (talk about agendas--everyone in the 90's was great except for Pippen apparently!). Sorry if that makes some fans insecure. Maybe the pain will ease in future years?

Re Jordan, the insecurity is comical from this shaken fan base. This very thread implicitly is favorable to Jordan (if you boil everything down to MJ and LeBron) but MJ stans are too unhinged and rattled by the LeBron threat to see it. :lol

As to insight, I'll happily put my posting, knowledge base and analytical ability up against Warriorfan/alts and let people judge who has the requisite horsepower and who doesn't...

He is dumb as a rock, which is why I rarely respond to him. His alts can be useful, though, at times to quote to demonstrate the absurdity of that camp. His BSBob alt is basically 3ball on crack.

[Roundball_Rock]

Yes but Jordan is playing in finals 6 times and conference finals 8 times during that span? So his TS is expected to fall off some.

Harden on the other hand has only played in two conference finals and the rest were 1st round or 2nd round knockouts. Harden had so many years when he was bounced out 2nd round or earlier. 13 conference finals games and the rest all 2nd or 1st round knockouts. So from that perspective, harden shouldn't have as big of a drop off as Jordan.

I used Jordan as a gold standard SG comp. People are too caught up in MJ anytime his name comes up. Let's remove him. Harden is 3 percent more efficient than Drexler, on par with Wade. Neither is ever attacked for their efficiency. 54 percent was fine for a SG in the 90's but 57 percent isn't great today.

back to Warriorfan/BSBob and the army of the same, MJ stans rely on bullying to promote censorship. It won't work. The days of MJ stans being given free reign to lie, deceive 24/7 are over. I expect MJ stans to be better going forward but until they keep taking the pounding daily and bitching about it. Read a book. Watch a game. Learn about MJ for once if you get off your knees.

[Roundball_Rock]

You are right, he didn't. But that 5% increase is a big deal. Moreso now that you are saying his volume was almost identical. Great player but overrated because of SSOL and no handchecking. The numbers you posted illuminate much of what I thought. Thanks.




Would you agrue most of those players "primed" in the mid and late 2000s? Just by watching them play it is obvious to me. I don't disagree they benefited from the rules changes however them becoming better players can also be true. Kobe for example was at his best coincidentally from 05-10. Redd's numbers in the playoffs are crazy though. I had forgotten how good he was in 2006.



Roundball_Rock is a Pippen fan and Jordan denigrater? A known troll too? Doesn't seem all that bad from my vantage point, but I just started posting again. You probably would know more than I do.

I don't know. I refer all basketball questions to basketball and posting authority Warriorfan. Ask the guy with the multiple bans who calls the guy with 10,000 posts with zero bans since 2009 a troll. It's absurd you give his BS and that of others banned multiple times (SamaraiSwish/PoutinPippen/Coach23/Money23/etc. as another example) credence and an airing.

Anyway, I won't be responding to this further. This is what dimwits like Warriorfan do. They can't contribute to the basketball discussion and derail threads, even threads that are favorable to MJ to anyone with an above room temperature IQ.

[Roundball_Rock]

Yes but Jordan is playing in finals 6 times and conference finals 8 times during that span? So his TS is expected to fall off some.

Harden on the other hand has only played in two conference finals and the rest were 1st round or 2nd round knockouts. Harden had so many years when he was bounced out 2nd round or earlier. 13 conference finals games and the rest all 2nd or 1st round knockouts. So from that perspective, harden shouldn't have as big of a drop off as Jordan.

Do you think Harden's numbers decrease as the series get tougher? That would be interesting to review. I did it in the Miller thread and he nose-dived after putting up big numbers in small 1st round series.

[HBK_Kliq_2]

I used Jordan as a gold standard SG comp. People are too caught up in MJ anytime his name comes up. Let's remove him. Harden is 3 percent more efficient than Drexler, on par with Wade. Neither is ever attacked for their efficiency. 54 percent was fine for a SG in the 90's but 57 percent isn't great today.

back to Warriorfan/BSBob and the army of the same, MJ stans rely on bullying to promote censorship. It won't work. The days of MJ stans being given free reign to lie, deceive 24/7 are over. I expect MJ stans to be better going forward but until they keep taking the pounding daily and bitching about it. Read a book. Watch a game. Learn about MJ for once if you get off your knees.

On average efficiency Wade/Harden are comparable. Wade just peaked higher in 2006 and played at a higher level then Harden ever did. If you take away Wade's 06 year, people would consider Harden better.

Harden's problem is close out games he's awful:

- 2015 he broke the record for most turnovers in a game

- 2017 he starts randomly playing like a role player in 2nd round game 6 for some reason

- 2018 he goes like 1/13 on threes or whatever

[Round Mound]

If he shot 57% in the 90's no one would care, even if there was a 4% decline. That was my point--the norm has increased so much that what would be great then is average now.



Kawhi is the best in class in efficiency among this era's stars. A 6% gap between him and Harden is large--but Harden is mid-pack. There is more variance among stars today. Here is what it looked like in the 90's:

Barkley 87’-95’: 58.3% (62.6%)
Malone 88’-99’: 53.1% (59.1%)
Ewing 88’-97’: 52.8% (56.3%)
Robinson 90’-98’: 54.9% (59.0%)
Shaq 94’-05’: 56.7% (58.4%)
Mourning 94’-00’: 54.8% (58.7%)
Hakeem 86’-97’: 57.8% (55.8%)
Jordan 87’-96’: 57.7% (58.6%)
Drexler 88’-95’: 54.1% (55.3%)
Harden 13’-19’: 56.9% (61.0%)
Wilkins 86’-94’: 50.9% (54.4%)
Pippen 91’-98’: 52.1% (54.6%)
Pippen 94’: 52.1% (54.4%)
Hill 95’-00’: 51.6% (54.4%)
Payton 94’-02’: 53.5% (53.7%)
Penny 95’-97’: 57.2% (58.9%)
Stockton 88’-98’: 57.3% (62.0%)
T. Hardaway 91’-98’: 52.9% (53.8%)

So the gap between Barkley and Wilkins was 7%. In this era the gap between #1 option Kawhi and DeRozan is 13%, Westbrook 12% (13% if comparing to Westbrook as a #1 option).

Harden, if in the 90's, looks great.

Harden is comparable to his peers:

DeRozan 14’-19’: 50.3% (54.2%)
Harden 13’-19’: 56.9% (61.0%)
Klay 15’-19’: 56.6% (58.9%)
Wade 06’-12’: 56.6% (57.1%)

The only reason he sticks out is, as you noted, his high RS baseline but he is more efficient than Wade (who is considered a very efficient player), Harden and much more efficient than DeRozan.

:bowdown:

[Roundball_Rock]

Still :lol at the surreality of Warriorfan/BSbob/etc.--one of the worst trolls I've seen anywhere and so bad he has been banned--opining as an authority on posting (after using a slur in the preceding post, then brilliantly contradicting himself in the quoted post--whining about "denigrating MJ" by fact checking clowns like him and seconds later...denigrating a player who makes him insecure about the aforementioned MJ). :roll:


Harden's problem is close out games he's awful:

- 2015 he broke the record for most turnovers in a game

- 2017 he starts randomly playing like a role player in 2nd round game 6 for some reason

- 2018 he goes like 1/13 on threes or whatever

Those are legit point--the question is would we find that if we inspected the record that closely of any player? For instance, in the Miller thread (a player considered to be very clutch) it was shown he had 8 point performances in elimination Game 6's in consecutive years in the ECF (3 for 18 and 2 for 13 shooting). Known as a scorer, he exceeded 20 points only twice in those 13 games. It isn't even remembered that stuff happened but every misstep of Harden or LeBron today is chronicled.

I don't think it is fair to compare Harden to Kawhi since Kawhi is this generation's gold standard for playoff performance.

How did Harden do in some recent big games? (Apologies for the crime of going to basketballreference to get data to further the discussion. :D )

2019

Game 5 WCSF 31/4/8 with 4 steals on 76% TS
Game 6 WCSF 35/8/4 with 4 steals on 58% TS but 6 turnovers

2018

Game 5 WCF 19/3/4 with 2 steals on 38% but 6 turnovers
Game 6 WCF 32/7/9 with 3 steals on 57% TS but 9 turnovers
Game 7 WCF 32/6/6 with 4 steals on 49% TS but 5 turnovers

2017

Game 4 WCSF 28/5/12 with 2 steals on 68% 4 turnovers
Game 5 WCSF 33/10/10 on 60% 9 turnovers
Game 6 WCSF 10/3/7 on 37% 6 turnovers

2015

Game 5 WCSF 26/11/10 55% TS 5 turnovers (elimination game)
Game 6 WCSF 23/2/3 46% TS 2 steals
Game 7 WCSF 31/7/8 56% TS 3 steals 7 turnovers

Game 4 WCF 45/9/5 52% TS 2 steals (elimination game)
Game 5 WCF 14/6/5 65% TS 3 steals 12 turnovers

So his shooting often has been solid but you are right: the turnovers pile up in a lot of these games. One caveat is his norm for turnovers is high. He has averaged 4, 4.6, 5.7, 4.4, 5.0, 4.5 in the RS from 2015-2020 (4.7 average). So 5-6 turnovers may jump off the page for most players but is actually his norm since he handles the ball so often but no excuse for 12 or 9 in a big game.

How does 4.7 compare? During the same years LeBron averaged 3.9 TOV, Westbrook 4.6, Lillard 2.8, Curry 3.1. So Harden is the highest. He has the ball a ton but if he could cut that down from 4.7 to, say, 3.0 that would add up in series.

How strong were these defenses? Clippers #15, 15' GS #1, 17' SA #1, 18' GS #11, 19' GS #13.


If you take away Wade's 06 year, people would consider Harden better.

You think so? Harden's accolades arguably are already better than Wade's but Harden has never been in the best player conversation the way peak Wade was. Both held very small shares of support but I felt Wade was seen as more legitimate a comp for LeBron and Kobe than Harden has been to Giannis, Kawhi, LeBron, Curry, KD in those respective discussions.

[Bronbron23]

TS% is the gold standard for measuring scoring efficiency. It’s been like that for over a decade. Op is a huge f.aggot.

True shooting can be trash because it takes foul shooting into account. You could be mediocre from the field but shoot a high percentage from the line and it can give the appearance that you pretty efficient from the field. Take this year with steph for example. Its only a 5 game sample and steph was coming off injury and rusty but he was having he worst efficiency by far from the field. He was shooting 25% from three and 40% from the field. His ts was almost as good as lebrons even though bron was 35% from three and 50% from the field. Thats a huge difference and its not like steph shoots alot of foul shots. If he was shooting 15 a game it would maybe make sense to factor in foul shooting into ts as much as it does but he shoots less free throws than pretty much everyone.

And before you take a panic attack i know this was an outlier for steph as far as efficiency from the field. Hes usually very efficient from the field. I just used this year to show how it can be misleading.

[Phoenix]

True shooting can be trash because it takes foul shooting into account. You could be mediocre from the field but shoot a high percentage from the line and it can give the appearance that you pretty efficient from the field. T

Case in point, Harden. Routinely a 43-44% shooter from the field, but over 60% TS every year.

Shaq was shooting 57-60% from the field in his prime, but couldn't manage a yearly 60% TS year( he was like 58%). Not hard to figure out what was dragging down his overall efficiency.

[warriorfan]

True shooting can be trash because it takes foul shooting into account. You could be mediocre from the field but shoot a high percentage from the line and it can give the appearance that you pretty efficient from the field. Take this year with steph for example. Its only a 5 game sample and steph was coming off injury and rusty but he was having he worst efficiency by far from the field. He was shooting 25% from three and 40% from the field. His ts was almost as good as lebrons even though bron was 35% from three and 50% from the field. Thats a huge difference and its not like steph shoots alot of foul shots. If he was shooting 15 a game it would maybe make sense to factor in foul shooting into ts as much as it does but he shoots less free throws than pretty much everyone.

And before you take a panic attack i know this was an outlier for steph as far as efficiency from the field. Hes usually very efficient from the field. I just used this year to show how it can be misleading.

Last time I checked, the final score of the game takes into account free throws.

Why would you discount them completely when evaluating a players’ efficiency?

(TS% also calculates 3 point shooting into the equation as well)

There is no more accurate statistic then TS% when it comes to evaluating scoring. (Until the NBA game takes out FT’s and 3 pointers at least)

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Rockball pleading for sympathy :lol

We know your life revolves around ISH, but its still a basketball message board. Find another hobby.

[Roundball_Rock]

True shooting can be trash because it takes foul shooting into account.

It also is irrelevant to the exercise because we are trying to see the impact of the rules changes. If a player's FG % goes up 5% and his FT % goes down 3%, that obscures the real decline if we use TS. I am not surprised Warriorfan lacks the horsepower to grasp something so simple. :oldlol:

Can Warriorfan present an example of a case in the OP where the picture changes materially if we switch from eFG% to TS%? Can he explain--using his profound intelligence--what removing hand-checking, etc. has to do with FT shooting? Thanks in advance. I look forward to seeing his insights as how awesome mental powers engage in the discussion that is occurring here outside of him, 3ball, and 1-2 other trolls.



Case in point, Harden. Routinely a 43-44% shooter from the field, but over 60% TS every year.

To be fair, he is taking 13 threes a game. As a two point shooter Harden is at 50.9% in his prime, Klay 50.9% too, Wade was 51.0% (05'-12'), DeRozan 47.7%, Lillard 48.6%, Curry 54.0%, Westbrook 47.7%. So he is fine as a two point shooter.

The issue with using just TS in other contexts (as noted earlier, it would be nonsensical to do so in this OP), is TS % obscures some things like Harden going 2 for 13 on threes if he goes 13 for 15 from the line. Those 11 misses hurt the team and should be factored into the analysis. I prefer using eFG% along with FT % but the general view here is TS % so that is what I use in normal contexts.

[warriorfan]

It also is irrelevant to the exercise because we are trying to see the impact of the rules changes. If a player's FG % goes up 5% and his FT % goes down 3%, that obscures the real decline if we use TS. I am not surprised Warriorfan lacks the horsepower to grasp something so simple. :oldlol:


Rule changes impact foul calls, which in turn get converted for points, which in turn literally decides the game outcome. Why would you take out free throws from the equation when examining differences in era? That would only be viable if you were comparing two eras in which one had free throw shooting, the other did not.



Can Warriorfan present an example of a case in the OP where the picture changes materially if we switch from eFG% to TS%? Can he explain--using his profound intelligence--what removing hand-checking, etc. has to do with FT shooting? Thanks in advance. I look forward to seeing his insights as how awesome mental powers engage in the discussion that is occurring here outside of him, 3ball, and 1-2 other trolls.


Removing hand checking = much harder to play defense on the perimeter = more touch fouls = more free throws

Are you really this stupid?






To be fair, he is taking 13 threes a game. As a two point shooter Harden is at 50.9% in his prime, Klay 50.9% too, Wade was 51.0% (05'-12'), DeRozan 47.7%, Lillard 48.6%, Curry 54.0%, Westbrook 47.7%. So he is fine as a two point shooter.

The issue with using just TS in other contexts (as noted earlier, it would be nonsensical to do so in this OP), is TS % obscures some things like Harden going 2 for 13 on threes if he goes 13 for 15 from the line. Those 11 misses hurt the team and should be factored into the analysis. I prefer using eFG% along with FT % but the general view here is TS % so that is what I use in normal contexts.

TS doesn’t obscure anything, it takes everything into account, your archaic FG percentage metrics literally do not even encompass any free throw scoring at all. You are doing what a lot of Harden haters do, try to make some ever moving goal post argument about how his free throws....shouldn’t count....at all. :lol. I’m sorry but free throws are part of the game. Eliminating them completely from your analysis makes it more cryptic and inaccurate, not more.

NOTE: Personal insults removed by mod

[Phoenix]

It also is irrelevant to the exercise because we are trying to see the impact of the rules changes. If a player's FG % goes up 5% and his FT % goes down 3%, that obscures the real decline if we use TS. I am not surprised Warriorfan lacks the horsepower to grasp something so simple. :oldlol:

Can Warriorfan present an example of a case in the OP where the picture changes materially if we switch from eFG% to TS%? Can he explain--using his profound intelligence--what removing hand-checking, etc. has to do with FT shooting? Thanks in advance. I look forward to seeing his insights as how awesome mental powers engage in the discussion that is occurring here outside of him, 3ball, and 1-2 other trolls.




To be fair, he is taking 13 threes a game. As a two point shooter Harden is at 50.9% in his prime, Klay 50.9% too, Wade was 51.0% (05'-12'), DeRozan 47.7%, Lillard 48.6%, Curry 54.0%, Westbrook 47.7%. So he is fine as a two point shooter.

The issue with using just TS in other contexts (as noted earlier, it would be nonsensical to do so in this OP), is TS % obscures some things like Harden going 2 for 13 on threes if he goes 13 for 15 from the line. Those 11 misses hurt the team and should be factored into the analysis. I prefer using eFG% along with FT % but the general view here is TS % so that is what I use in normal contexts.

Yeah but even when he was taking only 6-7 threes 5 years ago he was still more or less 43%. Which unto itself is an interesting trend, because hes like a 36-38% point shooter whether hes taking 7 3s a game or 13. Which he should get some credit for maintaining his efficiency even when his volume practically doubled.

[Roundball_Rock]

Yeah but even when he was taking only 6-7 threes 5 years ago he was still more or less 43%. Which unto itself is an interesting trend, because hes like a 36-38% point shooter whether hes taking 7 3s a game or 13. Which he should get some credit for maintaining his efficiency even when his volume practically doubled.

True. It appears what happened was as he increased his 3 point volume he managed to keep the same 3 point efficiency but his 2 point efficiency rose in those seasons so his overall FG % remained the same. 2017 was the big turning point in 2 point % so here are the splits:

2013-2016: 44.3% FG, 49.0% on two's (11 per game), 36.7% on threes (6.9 per game)
2017-2020: 44.1% FG, 53.1% on two's (10.3 per game), 35.9% on threes (11.2 per game)

His eFG % was 53.5% from 2017-2020, up from 51.4% from 2013-2016.

(For those in this thread with a FT % hard on because some of your favorites are/were elite FT shooters, his FT % was 86.1% in each set of years.)

[insidious301]

You are quoting a poster who has been banned multiple times for trolling as some sort of authority on posting...

Pippen was a superstar, unlike a guy like Miller who Warriorfan, his alt and various accounts all promote, as a comp (talk about agendas--everyone in the 90's was great except for Pippen apparently!). Sorry if that makes some fans insecure. Maybe the pain will ease in future years?

Re Jordan, the insecurity is comical from this shaken fan base. This very thread implicitly is favorable to Jordan (if you boil everything down to MJ and LeBron) but MJ stans are too unhinged and rattled by the LeBron threat to see it. :lol

As to insight, I'll happily put my posting, knowledge base and analytical ability up against Warriorfan/alts and let people judge who has the requisite horsepower and who doesn't...

He is dumb as a rock, which is why I rarely respond to him. His alts can be useful, though, at times to quote to demonstrate the absurdity of that camp. His BSBob alt is basically 3ball on crack.

Yeah I asked "warriorfan" because there were two other posters recently who have also called you a troll. Someone by the name of "PoutinPippin" was one IIRC. Didn't mean to hurt your feelings or anything. I want to know who I should be communicating with though. I often look at a posters history, usually the reputable ones, and read/bookmark posts that I might learn from. I think both of you raise good points when it pertains to efficiency. TS is something I don't use personally. If I want to talk about a players overall value then I will include it in a separate category.

[Roundball_Rock]

Yeah I asked "warriorfan" because there were two other posters recently who have also called you a troll. Someone by the name of "PoutinPippin" was one IIRC.

Yup--two posters who have been banned multiple times and have an army of current and former accounts. That's like moving to a new town and asking the local convicted felons where you should go. :lol You are going to the worst of the worst. Yet the troll is the guy with 10,000 posts in 11 years with zero bans! Laughable.

Like I said, they need to raise their games. If they are going to continue to lie and deceive, they will keep being held accountable for it (like HBK held 3ball accountable here :cheers: ).


I think both of you raise good points when it pertains to efficiency

It is intellectually dishonest to factor in FT % when assessing the rules changes. Did they move the FT line or something as well? Nope.

[insidious301]

Yup--two posters who have been banned multiple times and have an army of current and former accounts. That's like moving to a new town and asking the local convicted felons where you should go. :lol You are going to the worst of the worst. Yet the troll is the guy with 10,000 posts in 11 years with zero bans! Laughable.

Like I said, they need to raise their games. If they are going to continue to lie and deceive, they will keep being held accountable for it (like HBK held 3ball accountable here :cheers: ).

That's fair, and I'll keep that all in mind. Who is HBK and what is he holding 3ball accountable for?


It is intellectually dishonest to factor in FT % when assessing the rules changes. Did they move the FT line or something as well? Nope.

Freethrows should always be talked about when evaluating a players offense. Think you misunderstood or maybe I could have worded my post different. What I meant is that when a players inherent value is mentioned, I will include freethrows in their own SEPARATE category. I don't ignore them but I don't use TS either.

[Roundball_Rock]

Who is HBK and what is he holding 3ball accountable for?

Another poster in this thread who called out 3ball for another deceptive post.

Here is what 3ball said:


pippen's efficiency/scoring was bad regardless of era

and Jordan would have better efficiency than lebron in today's game, while averaging 10 more ppg (that's 5 more than the current 5 ppg gap in playoffs or regular season bulls career)

A lot of BS packed into a short post. So Jordan's efficiency would jump today (at least he is smart enough to grasp that implication of the OP, which sailed over Warriorfan/Etc.'s small head :lol )--but Pippen's won't. The attacks on Pippen's PO efficiency rely heavily on a few injured playoff runs. Here was HBK's reply:


Pippen TS in 1991/1992 playoffs was 55% and peaked at 56.4. He was above averaged efficiency the first 2 titles.

The 3rd title, Pippen had a big drop off at 50.4% TS which puts him at -3% TS for league average. Most players get tired on the 3rd of a 3peat, Kobe had bad efficiency in the 2002 WCF vs kings as well.

There also is this:

Pippen TS % in the Playoffs (RS % in parentheses)

1989-1995: 54.1% (54.1%)
1990-1995: 54.0% (54.3%)
1996-1998: 50.0% (54.8%)

So what changed? He was hurt in the playoffs each year in 96', 97', 98'--but was healthy for almost all the RS during those years so his RS baseline remained consistent but he had a falloff during the injured PO runs. Is this shocking? He had three separate injuries in the 96' playoffs.

Really, this TP relies entirely on 96' and 98'. In 97' he was more efficient than MJ despite a foot injury.

How about Portland? That is four more playoff runs--his TS % in the playoffs was identical to his regular season %.

Yet it is "trolling" to call out this type of deception--we have actual trolls calling doing this "intellectually disingenuous" across multiple accounts because they don't like their TP's from being exposed. Laughable but what else can they do? They can't defend their dishonesty and deception.

[Roundball_Rock]

You are an autistic f.uck who has zero grasp of basketball or common sense all together. Stick to the autistic copy pasting of obscure stats you cherry picked off basketball reference to further your agenda, you piece of human garbage.

:roll: This is the guy you are listening to as an arbiter of posting? :confusedshrug:

He is a nutjub--not to mention a bigot (this thread alone: gay people, disabled people) and a day or two ago he was making racist remarks about Asians.

His only "value" to them comes from him having like 10 accounts. They will often point to volume as a crutch for their poor arguments--but if you look under the hood you will find it is basically the same 4-5 people in each thread doing the same thing. For instance, Miller is one of the players Warriorfan and has numerous accounts like to defend (it is fine to say Miller is a superstar despite him having no case for it--but egregiously wrong to call a MVP candidate and all-NBA 1st team player that, apparently. You can't make this level of stupidity up :lol ).

[insidious301]

Oh I know about 3ball and his lies. Was only asking what this HBK poster had on him. That's a funny exchange. Not in a good way either. The problem I have with 3ball is he'll move goalposts after every counter you lay out on the table. To me that's a tell tale sign of trolling. Its also one of the reasons I don't respond to him anymore. He is the only active poster I see do that and it should be treated with a ban. Warriorfan otoh is a poster who I have had decent discussions with. I had no prior knowledge of his ban history. Maybe he can clear that up? FWIW I think you two can disagree and still be cool with one another. That's the problem I frequently see on ISH. People get insulted and bent out of shape if you dont agree with them. You might agree on 90% of the topics you debate in but that ONE subject is where shit hits the fan. If everyone agreed this place would get boring! Haha.

[Roundball_Rock]

FWIW I think you two can disagree and still be cool with one another.

You can't have a discussion with this:


You are an autistic f.uck who has zero grasp of basketball or common sense all together. Stick to the autistic copy pasting of obscure stats you cherry picked off basketball reference to further your agenda, you piece of human garbage.


Op is a huge f.aggot.

Just look at this thread. It was a fine, civil discussion until this nut showed up. Phoenix, HBK have had many lengthy exchanges in recent weeks--always civil, we share our reasoning and facts even when we disagree--but these are discussions where we go back and forth.


The problem I have with 3ball is he'll move goalposts after every counter you lay out on the table

I can't speak much to how he interacts with others, but what I've found when I have posted with him is he often simply won't respond to whatever you said and will just say what he previously said again.

Still, 3ball as a debator looks like Abraham Lincoln compared to Warriorfan. :lol

The most useless posters are those who can't have a discussion--whether due to agenda zealotry, idiocy or a combination of both-- where ideas and facts are exchanged and points are responded to (pro or con). I rarely read their posts and when I do I almost always regret the waste of time in doing so.

Here is the definition of forum:


a place, meeting, or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged.

[Turbo Slayer]

Rule changes impact foul calls, which in turn get converted for points, which in turn literally decides the game outcome. Why would you take out free throws from the equation when examining differences in era? That would only be viable if you were comparing two eras in which one had free throw shooting, the other did not.



Removing hand checking = much harder to play defense on the perimeter = more touch fouls = more free throws

Are you really this stupid?





TS doesn’t obscure anything, it takes everything into account, your archaic FG percentage metrics literally do not even encompass any free throw scoring at all. You are doing what a lot of Harden haters do, try to make some ever moving goal post argument about how his free throws....shouldn’t count....at all. :lol. I’m sorry but free throws are part of the game. Eliminating them completely from your analysis makes it more cryptic and inaccurate, not more.

You are an autistic f.uck who has zero grasp of basketball or common sense all together. Stick to the autistic copy pasting of obscure stats you cherry picked off basketball reference to further your agenda, you piece of human garbage.

Cringe. Especially the last paragragh.

[Roundball_Rock]

Cringe. Especially the last paragragh.

The sad thing is he doesn't grasp it (the failure to comprehend what he is "responding" to, the lazy lack of data presented to support his irrelevant to the OP theory, the meltdown and bigotry at the end, etc.). He is over here on a high horse lecturing on posting. :lol

[Turbo Slayer]

The sad thing is he doesn't grasp it (the failure to comprehend what he is "responding" to, the lazy lack of data presented to support his irrelevant to the OP theory, the meltdown and bigotry at the end, etc.). He is over here on a high horse lecturing on posting. :lol
Everything was fine in warriorfan's first 3 paragraphs but that last paragraph? Epic meltdown. He starts by making fun of gay people and disabled people and he then directs all of that to you. And he ends the paragraph with a corny ass insult. I mean, how is warriorfan not perma banned?

[Roundball_Rock]

Epic meltdown. He starts by making fun of gay people and disabled people and he then directs all of that to you. And he ends the paragraph with a corny ass insult. I mean, how is warriorfan not perma banned?

He was making racist remarks about Asians a day or two ago as well. The worst of the worst.

[Turbo Slayer]

He was making racist remarks about Asians a day or two ago as well. The worst of the worst.

Can I see one of warriorfan's racist remarks about Asians? Can you copy and paste one of them here? Thanks.

[Roundball_Rock]

You can't search recent posts and he posts in so many threads I would have to go into every thread to find it.

Would it surprise you? He made homophobic and anti-disabled remarks in this thread alone.

[warriorfan]

I’m the Tim Hardaway of InsideHoops. Get over it.

[Roundball_Rock]

I’m the Tim Hardaway of InsideHoops. Get over it.

Straight from a self-appointed arbiter of posting. "Get over" his bigotry and meltdowns and his 10 accounts. Pathetic. :facepalm

[warriorfan]

Straight from a self-appointed arbiter of posting. "Get over" his bigotry and meltdowns and his 10 accounts. Pathetic. :facepalm

Lmao what? I don’t think that is even possible unless they are Simon aka “wheels”.

Which 10 accounts are mine?

[Bronbron23]

Last time I checked, the final score of the game takes into account free throws.

Why would you discount them completely when evaluating a players’ efficiency?

(TS% also calculates 3 point shooting into the equation as well)

There is no more accurate statistic then TS% when it comes to evaluating scoring. (Until the NBA game takes out FT’s and 3 pointers at least)

im not saying they dont matter im just saying it can be misleading. I already showed you why. If you dont want to except it thats fine. You can continue to swim in the Egyptian river. You seem to like doing that.