Printable View
[QUOTE=tontoz]They had to do something to account for possessions that end in free throws.
[/QUOTE]
Imma let you in on a lil secret bruh, thehy had this stat that has existed for about 60 years...you ready? It's called.......FT shooting %!
It tells you how many ft's a guy has converted vs the amount he has not converted. :eek:
:roll: @ "they had to do something"
yall bout some a the goofiest folks I've ever encountered, gotta love the internet man.
[QUOTE=Akhenaten]Imma let you in on a lil secret bruh, thehy had this stat that has existed for about 60 years...you ready? It's called.......FT shooting %!
It tells you how many ft's a guy has converted vs the amount he has not converted. :eek:
:roll: @ "they had to do something"
yall bout some a the goofiest folks I've ever encountered, gotta love the internet man.[/QUOTE]
you are an idiot.
:oldlol:
:roll:
[QUOTE=Akhenaten]Imma let you in on a lil secret bruh, thehy had this stat that has existed for about 60 years...you ready? It's called.......FT shooting %!
It tells you how many ft's a guy has converted vs the amount he has not converted. :eek:
:roll: @ "they had to do something"
yall bout some a the goofiest folks I've ever encountered, gotta love the internet man.[/QUOTE]
He's right though. Have you ever actually looked at the stat?
"The .44 multiplier is because not all free throws take up a possession. Technical foul shots and "and-ones" do not, while there are more than two free throws on one possession with a three-shot foul. Research has determined that about 44% of all free throws take up possessions, thus .44 is used as the multiplier. "
If we wanted a better statistic, each persons ts% would have to calculated with individually different multipliers.
F*ck advanced stats. :applause:
Why would you just look at FG%? I look at PTS scored in in proportion to the FGA, FTA (2 FTA = ~1 FGA).
TS% pretty much puts that into a number, so it's convenient to compare different players. You don't have to use it, though. Just look at the FGA and FTA. There is no magic.
An example:
Player 1: 18 pts on 17 FGA/0FTA (9-17, 53 FG%)
Player 2: 18 pts on 12 FGA/0FTA (6-12, 50 FG%)
Player 3: 18 pts on 10 FGA/6FTA (4-10, 40 FG%)
Obviously player 1 is much worse than player 2 and 3 even though he has better FG%. It's difficult to say which player is more efficient between P2 and P3, because P3 could have had multiple AND-1 plays or fouls on 3 point shots. TS% tries to estimate the number of AND-1 and 3-point fouls, probably based on the league average. The most likely scenario is that P2 was more efficient than P3.
TS% of these three players:
Player 1: 53%
Player 2: 75%
Player 3: 71%
TS% was introduced because FG% and eFG% were so flawed at showing the efficiency of a player. It's just the better stat. In the future there probably won't be an arbitrary estimate in TS% (It's neglectable right now), because we have play by play data to see how every player got to the FT line (And-1, 3P shooting foul, 2P shooting foul, technical fouls).
[QUOTE=Akhenaten]Is this a fancy way of saying a ft = 1 point, a shot within 23' 9= 3 points, and a shot within 23'9=2 points
WOW:eek: BRILLANT:eek:
my puny brain can barely understand these "weighted values", you are so intellectually advanced :bowdown:[/QUOTE]
If you want to look at 2 pt%, 3pt% and FT% separately you can. That option is available at BR. TS is attempting to combine all 3.
Pretty much anything is better than just looking at FG%.
There is no reason to combine the 3 numbers into one. Show me the shooting percentage...what they shoot from 3...and the FT percentage.
Making it one number gives me less information not more. Shaqs TS was in the 60s multiple times. For his career it was .586...Dirks is .582. I leave it at that...incomplete picture.
I point out that Dirk shot 48%, 38% from 3, and 88% from the line....and Shaq 58%, .045 from 3(1-22 for his career), and 53% from the line....do I not have a better idea what both of them were about?
Why...would I want it in one number? Either way id need to know more than the numbers...but with one of them...I know generally how the final TS% number came to be.
Isnt the why/how...more important than the final number which tells you no details?
TS doesnt need to exist. Not like people online have too much going on in their lives to just write out 3 numbers in a 300 word post instead of one....
[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]There is no reason to combine the 3 numbers into one. Show me the shooting percentage...what they shoot from 3...and the FT percentage.
Making it one number gives me less information not more. Shaqs TS was in the 60s multiple times. For his career it was .586...Dirks is .582. I leave it at that...incomplete picture.
I point out that Dirk shot 48%, 38% from 3, and 88% from the line....and Shaq 58%, .045 from 3(1-22 for his career), and 53% from the line....do I not have a better idea what both of them were about?
Why...would I want it in one number? Either way id need to know more than the numbers...but with one of them...I know generally how the final TS% number came to be.
Isnt the why/how...more important than the final number which tells you no details?
TS doesnt need to exist. Not like people online have too much going on in their lives to just write out 3 numbers in a 300 word post instead of one....[/QUOTE]
TS, or pretty much anything, is better than FG%. FG% is worthless because it penalizes guys for shooting 3s.
If you want to look at things separately then look at 2pt%, 3pt%, and FT%. But looking at FG% and 3pt% makes no sense at all.
There is really no reason for FG% to exist.
Majority of advanced metrics should be used as team stats.
ORTG, DRTG, SRS, TS, etc....
i guess if you call the really fair minded jounalists, historians.
Then you ought to separate system and character coaches. Both at the hc level as well as the ac level.
[QUOTE=tontoz]TS, or pretty much anything, is better than FG%. FG% is worthless because it penalizes guys for shooting 3s.
If you want to look at things separately then look at 2pt%, 3pt%, and FT%. But looking at FG% and 3pt% makes no sense at all.
There is really no reason for FG% to exist.[/QUOTE]
FG% should penalize people for shooting threes though. Because threes are a much lower percentage shot than 2 pointers. Field Goal Percentage helps you determine how good somebody's shot selection is.
You should look at all the percentages, FG, 2 pt, 3 pt, FT (as well as how many attempts are being taken of each) and draw your own conclusions. Not look to one "master stat" to tell us how good of a scorer/shooter someone is. That's just ridiculous.
[QUOTE=tontoz]What would you prefer? They had to do something to account for possessions that end in free throws.
We already have EFG which measures just shooting from the field.[/QUOTE]
I prefer fg%/3p%/ft% and fga/3pa/fta just like that. As Kblaze said, there was no need to put them all together. Just make sure you post all three when dealing with players.
[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]
[B]Why...would I want it in one number?[/B] Either way id need to know more than the numbers...but with one of them...I know generally how the final TS% number came to be.
Isnt the why/how...more important than the final number which tells you no details?
TS doesnt need to exist. Not like people online have too much going on in their lives to just write out 3 numbers in a 300 word post instead of one....[/QUOTE]
Because that number makes you look like you're near GOAT caliber (Harden)
[QUOTE=navy]He's right though. Have you ever actually looked at the stat?
"The .44 multiplier is because not all free throws take up a possession. Technical foul shots and "and-ones" do not, while there are more than two free throws on one possession with a three-shot foul. Research has determined that about 44% of all free throws take up possessions, thus .44 is used as the multiplier. "
[B]If we wanted a better statistic, each persons ts% would have to calculated with individually different multipliers.[/B][/QUOTE]
:applause: This guy gets it.
[QUOTE=tontoz]TS, or pretty much anything, is better than FG%. [B]FG% is worthless because it penalizes guys for shooting 3s.[/B]
If you want to look at things separately then look at 2pt%, 3pt%, and FT%. But looking at FG% and 3pt% makes no sense at all.
There is really no reason for FG% to exist.[/QUOTE]
To an idiot or someone who has never seen them play.
You think anyone sees Ray allens 45% shooting and thinks he cant shoot?
Who would you even be giving more information to...by using TS? The nobody who doesnt know Ray shot a lot of threes?
Future generations who might not know his game....but STILL have to go look at FG, 3 pointers, and FTs to know how the number came to be?
If you dont know a guys game...and are told his TS%...you still know nothing about how he scores.
You still have to see if hes shooting threes....if hes shooting FTs...
Its a number that tells you nothing...without the data that is used to create it.
So why not just post the data that creates it and skip the middle point of people having to google the guy to see why he shot that TS%?
Just list the numbers that combine to form it....its just more accurate.
Kareems TS is higher than Ray Allens. If I dont know anything about either....dont I still need a lot more information to determine better shooter? If so....why not just direct me to the separate numbers...which is what id go get to decide the matter anyway?
It's obviously for people who are insecure about basic efficiency... And don't give me this crap I about combining fg% and ft%, I can just look at them seperately and I know enough.
[QUOTE=StephHamann]We need a new statistic that doesn't count dunks and layups as shooting.
Brandan wright "shoots" something like 70% but we all know he can't shoot a j if his live depended on it.[/QUOTE]
:biggums:
Never go full retard.
[QUOTE=tontoz]:wtf:
Correlation does not equal causation. You also have to look at overall production when looking at GOAT. [/quote]
:eek:
Who the hell is talking about causation??? If its a good stat it will manifest itself in the greatest players. If eight out of ten of the greatest have much more a relationship to FG% than TS% its not really even close. None of the Top Goats were TS% upper echelons. The most dominant players ever were great in FG%. correlation.
[quote]
It is obviously easier to maintain high scoring efficiency with a lower scoring average. Magic didn't score as much as Bird so obviously it was easier to maintain higher efficiency. [/quote]
Thus, the mention of Adrian Dantley as the supreme example of efficiency. What excuse are you going to give me now??? Dantley scored much more than Bird and his TS% was much, much better.
[quote]
TS is not a measure of scoring volume, only of efficiency. And it does a much better job than FG.[/QUOTE]
Show me your examples.
Shaq and Wilt the two most dominant players ever. Numerous, many, FG% titles between them. Your go.
[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]To an idiot or someone who has never seen them play.
You think anyone sees Ray allens 45% shooting and thinks he cant shoot?
Who would you even be giving more information to...by using TS? The nobody who doesnt know Ray shot a lot of threes?
Future generations who might not know his game....but STILL have to go look at FG, 3 pointers, and FTs to know how the number came to be?
If you dont know a guys game...and are told his TS%...you still know nothing about how he scores.
You still have to see if hes shooting threes....if hes shooting FTs...
Its a number that tells you nothing...without the data that is used to create it.
So why not just post the data that creates it and skip the middle point of people having to google the guy to see why he shot that TS%?
Just list the numbers that combine to form it....its just more accurate.
Kareems TS is higher than Ray Allens. If I dont know anything about either....dont I still need a lot more information to determine better shooter? If so....why not just direct me to the separate numbers...which is what id go get to decide the matter anyway?[/QUOTE]
Lillard is shooting 50% on 2 point shots. But his FG% is only 45.4% because he takes a lot of 3s.
Obviously to get the full picture it is best to look at 2 pt point shots, 3 point shots and fts separately. But regardless of whether you want one stat or want to look at them separately there is no reason to look at FG% at all. FG% is worthless.
[QUOTE=tontoz]Lillard is shooting 50% on 2 point shots. But his FG% is only 45.4% because he takes a lot of 3s.
Obviously to get the full picture it is best to look at 2 pt point shots, 3 point shots and fts separately. But regardless of whether you want one stat or want to look at them separately there is no reason to look at FG% at all. FG% is worthless.[/QUOTE]
You can't subtract threes taken from total field goals on your own?
TS% is actually factually the best measurement to measure the player's efficiency if you actually learn about the facts of TS% actual formula.
[QUOTE=Pointguard]:eek:
Who the hell is talking about causation??? If its a good stat it will manifest itself in the greatest players. If eight out of ten of the greatest have much more a relationship to FG% than TS% its not really even close. None of the Top Goats were TS% upper echelons. The most dominant players ever were great in FG%. correlation.
Thus, the mention of Adrian Dantley as the supreme example of efficiency. What excuse are you going to give me now??? Dantley scored much more than Bird and his TS% was much, much better.
Show me your examples.
Shaq and Wilt the two most dominant players ever. Numerous, many, FG% titles between them. Your go.[/QUOTE]
I already did. Lillard is a perfect example, as are Reggie Miller and Ray Allen.
I want to see the examples of guys who have a high FG% but not high TS among these all time greats. LOL @ using Shaq and Wilt, two notoriously poor foul shooters. Their FG% was identical to their TS so they are outliers anyway.
You seem to be forgetting that there is more to being a great player than just shooting. Any shooting percentage by definition ignores other aspects of the game like rebounding, defense, passing, etc. Shaq and Wilt were both beasts on the boards and on D.
Do you think Dantley was as good on D and on the boards as Wilt and Shaq?
Any shooting percentage also fails to account for scoring volume. Brandan Wright ring a bell? He has a career FG% better than Shaq and Wilt. Does that make him an all time great?
[QUOTE=ProfessorMurder]You can't subtract threes taken from total field goals on your own?[/QUOTE]
why should we have to do that, then recalculate the percentage, every time we want to compare shooting stats? It makes more sense to just have 2 pointers, 3 pointers and fts as separate percentages.
They are listed separately at basketball reference as they should be.
TS% doesn't combine percentages, it just looks at how many points were scored in relation to how many that would've been scored if all possessions were used correctly.
The player that has the higher TS% made better use of his possessions AKA was more efficient. It's not hard. This doesn't neccessarily mean he's the better scorer because there are other factors that have to be considered such as volume, defensive attention, etc. But just looking at scoring efficiency alone, TS% is the best stat to use.
[QUOTE=Optimus Prime]Advanced stats like TS, PER, WS, etc. were only created in order to prop up manufactured "legends" like LeBron and tear down real legends like MJ, Kobe, etc.
They are to be dismissed, ridiculed then ignored by anyone who knows and understands basketball. The same should be done to anyone who uses advanced stats in their arguments.
:kobe:[/QUOTE]
Advanced stats actually prop up MJ just fine. However, they make Kobe look like the overrated chucker that he is. :lol
OP :bowdown:
Preach my brotha!! Preach!!
Yikes...
I just read this entire thread, and it's very telling that the 'old school' side used superior logic and common sense and were able to explain their rationale more clearly due to superior writing skills.
As an econ guy in school and ex-published economist, there was a time when I was fascinated by every number and statistic in the world. As I've aged into my late twenties and my basketball knowledge has grown, I find myself going back to FGM/FGA, etc. I agree with the poster who said that advanced team stats are most useful in a team setting.
[QUOTE=Young X]
The player that has the higher TS% made better use of his possessions AKA was more efficient.
[/QUOTE]
this isn't true.
let me explain real quick: shooting 33% on a three-pointer is equal to shooting 50% on a two-pointer.
so TS% merely accounts for this fact and accordingly weights 3-pointers a little heavier, while also incorporating FT's into the final TS percentage.
so TS% is a player's percentage on ALL the shots they take (3-pointers, 2-pointers and FT's).
players that shoot a material volume of 3-pointers, and shoot them WELL enough (33% or higher compared to a 50% two-point shot), will have higher TS% than a player that didn't attempt many 3-pointers, or had a poor percentage - so TS percentages are definitely propped up higher in today's era due to the emphasis on 3-point shooting.
but TS% doesn't consider how LONG a player held the ball, or the other factors going into a possession, so it certainly doesn't measure who is "using" possessions the best.
Fu*king nerds:facepalm
[QUOTE=3ball]this isn't true.
let me explain real quick: shooting 33% on a three-pointer is equal to shooting 50% on a two-pointer.
so TS% merely accounts for this fact and accordingly weights 3-pointers a little heavier, while also incorporating FT's into the final TS percentage.
so TS% is a player's percentage on ALL the shots they take (3-pointers, 2-pointers and FT's).
players that shoot a material volume of 3-pointers, and shoot them WELL enough (33% or higher compared to a 50% two-point shot), will have higher TS% than a player that didn't attempt many 3-pointers, or had a poor percentage - so TS percentages are definitely slanted higher in today's era due to the emphasis on 3-point shooting.
but TS% doesn't consider how LONG a player held the ball, or the other factors going into a possession, so it certainly doesn't measure who is "using" possessions the best.[/QUOTE]
Huh? No shooting percentage stat considers how long a player held the ball before shooting.
There is a reason why today's era has more emphasis on 3s. Because most guys shoot under 50% from 10 to 22 feet. Other than shots at the rim the 3 point shot is typically the most efficient shot, assuming the player is a competent 3 point shooter.
Looking at 2 point jumpers from 10-22 feet from last season Dirk and Curry, two of the leagues elite shooters, managed to shoot 50% from that range. Most guys are closer to 40%.
[url]http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/plus/shot_finder.cgi?request=1&player_id=&match=single&year_id=2014&is_playoffs=N&team_id=&opp_id=&game_num_min=0&game_num_max=99&game_month=&game_location=&game_result=&shot_pts=&is_make=&shot_type=&shot_distance_min=10&shot_distance_max=22&q1=Y&q2=Y&q3=Y&q4=Y&q5=Y&time_remain_minutes=12&time_remain_seconds=0&time_remain_comp=le&margin_min=&margin_max=&c1stat=&c1comp=ge&c1val=&c2stat=&c2comp=ge&c2val=&c3stat=&c3comp=ge&c3val=&order_by=fg[/url]
Ideally the best shots are at the rim but those shots are also the hardest to get.
FG% should be retired. You always see FG% alongside 3P%. They should just show 2P% and 3P%
[QUOTE=ralph_i_el]FG% means nothing.
If you're against TS% you're a ****ing luddite[/QUOTE]
Man I love this forum its the daily hilaria
[QUOTE=coin24]Fu*king nerds:facepalm[/QUOTE]
I know man lol where's Shaq.
He'd listen to it like 30 seconds, just grab a ball in one hand make a fist and smash it flat then ram it down their throat whilst floating off on that genie cloud and displaying a big ol' Kazaam grin
[QUOTE=Young X]TS% doesn't combine percentages, it just looks at how many points were scored in relation to how many that would've been scored if all possessions were used correctly.
The player that has the higher TS% made better use of his possessions AKA was more efficient. It's not hard. This doesn't neccessarily mean he's the better scorer because there are other factors that have to be considered such as volume, defensive attention, etc. But just looking at scoring efficiency alone, TS% is the best stat to use.[/QUOTE]
This x10.
I don't know why people view this stuff in such a black and white way, as if one stat HAS to be flawless, or else it's utterly meaningless. All these stats, whether raw stats or advanced metrics, have to be used in conjunction with team context (style of play, player roles, etc.) and the eye test. The people who talk shit about TS% are the people who have made some contrived connection between the stat and actual skill level, when it clearly has nothing to do with that. All it does is give you the closest thing to an accurate picture of overall scoring efficiency. Which again, is actually pretty damn valuable if you know how to properly apply it in basketball analysis.
[QUOTE=brooks_thompson]I just read this entire thread, and it's very telling that the 'old school' side used superior logic and common sense and were able to explain their rationale more clearly due to superior writing skills.
As an econ guy in school and ex-published economist, there was a time when I was fascinated by every number and statistic in the world. As I've aged into my late twenties and my basketball knowledge has grown, I find myself going back to FGM/FGA, etc. I agree with the poster who said that advanced team stats are most useful in a team setting.[/QUOTE]
Not to derail the train, but this is from a real old thread where we were talking about Wilt and the 60s - in regards to PER rather than TS - but it still goes to your point.....
Looky here at a old timer point of view.
"Back in the olden days," there was just 3 basic stats; ppg, rpg, and apg. Blocks & steals weren't recognized as a statistic. I'm talking about a [B][I]long[/I][/B] time ago.
PER and all those kinds of great advanced stats are skewed by that fact, so it's valid to compare players BEFORE 1974, or AFTER 1974, but to cross that line is not valid. Really 1979-80 season, when the 3 pointer came to the NBA is another line for comparing guys PER.
I saw Chamberlain block 17 shots against Bob Lanier's Pistons when he was a old-@$$ Laker... saw him block KAJ skyhooks too. But if you look in the books, Wilt never blocked a single shot. All his blocks count for 0. In reality, Chamberlain's PER is jackshite low compared to what it really was.
He had real quick hands too, & got lots of steals. Not Jerry West Walt Frazier Bernard King Joe Dumars Mike hands, but he did get a ton of em. On PER rating that also counts for bumpkus.
Refs from that day have gone on record saying Wilt & Russell undoubtedly had triple doubles seasons if blocks had counted back then.
Well, it used to be we'd just add up the 3 key stats & you had a pretty fair figure for what a guy was doing on the court. Everybody did it. That old method is totally abandoned, possibly because ESPN can't add. But we can, so let's just look real quick.
Shaq 23.7 + 10.9 + 2.5 = 37.1
Dirk 23 + 8.4 + 2.7 = 34.1
KAJ 24.6 + 11.4 + 3.6 = 39.6
Magic 19.5 + 7.2 + 11.2 = 37.9
MJ 30.1 + 6.2 + 5.3 = 41.4
Russell 15.1 + 22.5 + 4.3 = 41.9
Rick Barry 23.2 + 6.5 + 5.1 = 34.8
Wilt 30.1 + 22.9 + 4.4 = 58.4
That's just insane.
*******************************
Me and some of the old guys still use that method, and it's still more accurate than all these advanced fiddleries that have since been devised to confuse.
Not that I disagree at all with the Mighty Ralph_i_el but I'm just sayin ... there's a lot of truth to that simple, infallible method that old Abe Saperstein showed to a bunch of hoops hippies a long long time ago
[QUOTE=La Frescobaldi]Not to derail the train, but this is from a real old thread where we were talking about Wilt and the 60s - in regards to PER rather than TS - but it still goes to your point.....
Looky here at a old timer point of view.
"Back in the olden days," there was just 3 basic stats; ppg, rpg, and apg. Blocks & steals weren't recognized as a statistic. I'm talking about a [B][I]long[/I][/B] time ago.
PER and all those kinds of great advanced stats are skewed by that fact, so it's valid to compare players BEFORE 1974, or AFTER 1974, but to cross that line is not valid. Really 1979-80 season, when the 3 pointer came to the NBA is another line for comparing guys PER.
I saw Chamberlain block 17 shots against Bob Lanier's Pistons when he was a old-@$$ Laker... saw him block KAJ skyhooks too. But if you look in the books, Wilt never blocked a single shot. All his blocks count for 0. In reality, Chamberlain's PER is jackshite low compared to what it really was.
He had real quick hands too, & got lots of steals. Not Jerry West Walt Frazier Bernard King Joe Dumars Mike hands, but he did get a ton of em. On PER rating that also counts for bumpkus.
Refs from that day have gone on record saying Wilt & Russell undoubtedly had triple doubles seasons if blocks had counted back then.
Well, it used to be we'd just add up the 3 key stats & you had a pretty fair figure for what a guy was doing on the court. Everybody did it. That old method is totally abandoned, possibly because ESPN can't add. But we can, so let's just look real quick.
Shaq 23.7 + 10.9 + 2.5 = 37.1
Dirk 23 + 8.4 + 2.7 = 34.1
KAJ 24.6 + 11.4 + 3.6 = 39.6
Magic 19.5 + 7.2 + 11.2 = 37.9
MJ 30.1 + 6.2 + 5.3 = 41.4
Russell 15.1 + 22.5 + 4.3 = 41.9
Rick Barry 23.2 + 6.5 + 5.1 = 34.8
Wilt 30.1 + 22.9 + 4.4 = 58.4
That's just insane.
*******************************
Me and some of the old guys still use that method, and it's still more accurate than all these advanced fiddleries that have since been devised to confuse.
Not that I disagree at all with the Mighty Ralph_i_el but I'm just sayin ... there's a lot of truth to that simple, infallible method that old Abe Saperstein showed to a bunch of hoops hippies a long long time ago[/QUOTE]
One of the many impressive facts about Wilt was that he was not only the best rebounder on the floor in the vast majority of his games (and even moreso in the post-season when he was unapproachable), but the man was likely blocking at LEAST 8 shots per game in his career. Why is that so impressive? Because the reality was/is, blocked shots tend to REDUCE rebounding numbers. And given the fact that Wilt not only blocked 8+ shots per game, but he likely went for another 8+ every game, as well. One can only speculate, of course, but he clearly LOST some of his potential rebounds every game, and I suspect it was perhaps around 4 per game, by being the greatest shot-blocker (and by a wide margin) of all-time.
It's not as simple as "I can just look at all 3 %s separately and figure the same thing." Because two players can have the exact %s across the board but one could be significantly more efficient based on the amount of 3s and FTs they took relative to their total shots.
[QUOTE=chazzy]It's not as simple as "I can just look at all 3 %s separately and figure the same thing." Because two players can have the exact %s across the board but one could be significantly more efficient based on the amount of 3s and FTs they took relative to their total shots.[/QUOTE]
That's why you put in attempts as well.
fg%/3p%/ft% with fga/3pa/fta
[QUOTE=navy]That's why you put in attempts as well.
fg%/3p%/ft% with fga/3pa/fta[/QUOTE]
I do this too. Keep it simple.
[QUOTE=navy]That's why you put in attempts as well.
2p%/3p%/ft% with 2pa/3pa/fta[/QUOTE]
fyp
Well simply put, there is a higher correlation between TS% and Wins than FG% and wins.
And isn't that what stats are supposed to be? A predictor of wins? This is like using batting average to determine a players value in baseball, even though there are better measures available, such as OPS, WAR, etc.