Printable View
[QUOTE=tontoz]fyp[/QUOTE]
Agreed with the fix. Since 3-pointers already exist as a separate category, what's the value of using a stat that still includes them when you can simply replace it by 2 pointers and avoid needless subtractions? In the rest of the world, there's no such thing as FG% as a basic stat.
[QUOTE=Psileas]Agreed with the fix. Since 3-pointers already exist as a separate category, what's the value of using a stat that still includes them when you can simply replace it by 2 pointers and avoid needless subtractions? In the rest of the world, there's no such thing as FG% as a basic stat.[/QUOTE]
Interesting, but not surprising, that the rest of the world has more sense than we do.
The fallacy of TS%...
e.g.
Tyson Chandler in 2011-12:
.679 FG%
.000 3pt% (0-2)
.689 FT%
.708 TS%
Makes perfect sense to me...
[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]The fallacy of TS%...
e.g.
Tyson Chandler in 2011-12:
.679 FG%
.000 3pt% (0-2)
.689 FT%
.708 TS%
Makes perfect sense to me...[/QUOTE]
What about this doesn't make sense to you?
Edit: weird, I did the math and his TS came out to 69.8%
[B]FG% is something that does not favor the kobetards...thats why.[/B]
Can a statistic live rent free in heads? Because it seems to be able to...
Although TS% is a good measure for a player's efficiency there are still many other factors that can take into place.
Have you ever considered that a 40% 3 point percentage may be worth more than a 60% 2 point percentage? Mathematically a 40% 3 point percentage equates a 60% 2 point percentage...but...
However, 3 points in a single possession is better than 2 points in a single possession because of momentum. Take for example, you bring the ball upcourt then shoot a 3, next play you do the same thing, that's 6 quick points in total. But for a 2 point field goal, you cannot score 6 points in 2 possession unless you got fouled in and hit the and1 for both plays...you only can score 6 points in 3 possessions normally..
:applause: :applause: :applause:
[QUOTE=Milbuck]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]
[QUOTE=ralph_i_el]What about this doesn't make sense to you?
Edit: weird, I did the math and his TS came out to 69.8%[/QUOTE]
What about it makes ANY sense to you?
Geezus.
Completely throw out his 0-2 from the acr.
The man made .679 of his 2pt FG% attempts.
The man made .689 from the FT line.
And that comes out to .708 ?
If a place kicker makes 2/3 from the right side of the hash, and 2/3 from the left...does that come out to a .750 FG%?
If a player has a 50% FG% and a 50% FT%, does he shoot .600 overall?
If anything, Chandler's FG% should be somewhere in BETWEEN .679 and .689...and NOT EXCEEDING the higher of the two percentages.
I can understand the complexity that a 3pt shots adds, but in Chandlers' case, it doesn't come into play at all.
Just another stat where a computer nerd arbitrarily throws up a random .44 number and hopes that no one notices just how ridiculous it is.
[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]The fallacy of TS%...
e.g.
Tyson Chandler in 2011-12:
.679 FG%
.000 3pt% (0-2)
.689 FT%
.708 TS%
Makes perfect sense to me...[/QUOTE]
BTW, and for those that are interested...
here is Chandler's ACTUAL TRUE shooting percentage in 2011-12:
He went 241-355 in TOTAL FGAs, but included in that was 0-2 from the arc. Normally we would have to separate the two (i.e.... 241-353 on 2pt FGAs and then 0-2 on 3pt FGAs), but a missed 3pt attempt counts the same as missed 2pt attempt, and since he didn't make any, it makes zero difference.
But I will break it down anyway:
A 2pt FGA counts as 2.
A 2pt FGM counts as 2.
A 3pt FGA counts as 2
A 3pt FGM counts as 3.
A FTA counts as 1.
A FTM counts as 1.
Chandler's totals:
2pt FGA= 353 or 706
2pt FGM= 241 or 482
3pt FGA= 2 or 4
3pt FGM= 0 or 0
FTA= 315
FTM= 217
Total SHOT attempts= 706+4+315= 1025
Total MADE attempst= 482+0+217= 699
699/1025= .682 or a TRUE TS% of .682.
Simple enough.
And of course it makes MUCH more sense than his ACTUAL TS% of .708 .
[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]What about it makes ANY sense to you?
Geezus.
Completely throw out his 0-2 from the acr.
The man made .679 of his 2pt FG% attempts.
The man made .689 from the FT line.
And that comes out to .708 ?
If a place kicker makes 2/3 from the right side of the hash, and 2/3 from the left...does that come out to a .750 FG%?
If a player has a 50% FG% and a 50% FT%, does he shoot .600 overall?
If anything, Chandler's FG% should be somewhere in BETWEEN .679 and .689...and NOT EXCEEDING the higher of the two percentages.
I can understand the complexity that a 3pt shots adds, but in Chandlers' case, it doesn't come into play at all.
Just another stat where a computer nerd arbitrarily throws up a random .44 number and hopes that no one notices just how ridiculous it is.[/QUOTE]
.44 is not an arbitrary number......
Second issue with standardized TS%...
It CAN'T be compared across era's.
The ONLY shooting statistic that can be compared across era's is FT%.
[QUOTE=riseagainst].44 is not an arbitrary number......[/QUOTE]
YES it is. It is NOT a possession stat. Never has been.
[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]The fallacy of TS%...
e.g.
Tyson Chandler in 2011-12:
.679 FG%
.000 3pt% (0-2)
.689 FT%
.708 TS%
Makes perfect sense to me...[/QUOTE]
There are And-ones. He didn't use up extra possessions to score more points -> makes him more efficient.
[QUOTE=eklip]There are And-ones. He didn't use up extra possessions to score more points -> makes him more efficient.[/QUOTE]
That is a POSSESSION stat that is not truly measurable by .44.
TRUE SHOOTING is TRUE SHOOTING.
There are also TECHNICAL FTAs as well.
Again...not a truly measureable possession stat.
Unless someone is actually measuring EVERY "and-one" and EVERY technical FT for EVERY player... it is an ARBITRARY stat.
[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]That is a POSSESSION stat that is not truly measurable by .44.
TRUE SHOOTING is TRUE SHOOTING.
There are also TECHNICAL FTAs as well.
Again...not a truly measureable possession stat.[/QUOTE]
How do you account for an And1?
[QUOTE=tontoz]How do you account for an And1?[/QUOTE]
Show me where Chandler's "and-one's" were measured. Or his technical FTAs.
[QUOTE=tontoz]How do you account for an And1?[/QUOTE]
BTW, Chamberlain and Shaq are THE TWO greatest ever in that category (albeit, I have never seen their actual numbers.)
Furthermore, in Wilt's era, there were different FTA scenarios, such as 3-to-make-2, or 2-to-make-1, or even single FTAs on none shooting fouls.
BTW, Wilt's EFFECTIVE FT% was considerably higher than his ACTUAL FT%. As was his EFFECTIVE TS%.
[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]Show me where Chandler's "and-one's" were measured. Or his technical FTAs.[/QUOTE]
It is pretty much a given that Chandler won't be shooting techs.
But we can also assume that some of his made free throws were and1s. in your math on the previous page it seems you are completely ignoring the posibility that he made any and1s.
So i ask again, how do you account for and1s? Or do you think he went the entire season without one?
[QUOTE=tontoz]It is pretty much a given that Chandler won't be shooting techs.
But we can also assume that some of his made free throws were and1s. in your math on the previous page it seems you are completely ignoring the posibility that he made any and1s.
So i ask again, how do you account for and1s? Or do you think he went the entire season without one?[/QUOTE]
BUT, what you are claiming is an EXACT TS%. Unless we KNOW, it is not measureable.
Some players obviously have far more "and-one's" than other's. Do we KNOW Wilt's and Shaq's? Yet, their TS%'s are lumped in with the same ARBITRARY .44 number as everyone else.
Same with the better FT shooters. Some of them probably take far more technical FTs during the season...yet, they are lumped in with everyone else.
[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]That is a POSSESSION stat that is not truly measurable by .44.
TRUE SHOOTING is TRUE SHOOTING.
There are also TECHNICAL FTAs as well.
Again...not a truly measureable possession stat.[/QUOTE]
"True shooting" is just a name for the stat.
The stat isn't perfect, but it's close to being perfect. The margin of error is really neglectable. It's definitely not a reason not to use it.
[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]BTW, and for those that are interested...
here is Chandler's ACTUAL TRUE shooting percentage in 2011-12:
He went 241-355 in TOTAL FGAs, but included in that was 0-2 from the arc. Normally we would have to separate the two (i.e.... 241-353 on 2pt FGAs and then 0-2 on 3pt FGAs), but a missed 3pt attempt counts the same as missed 2pt attempt, and since he didn't make any, it makes zero difference.
But I will break it down anyway:
A 2pt FGA counts as 2.
A 2pt FGM counts as 2.
A 3pt FGA counts as 2
A 3pt FGM counts as 3.
A FTA counts as 1.
A FTM counts as 1.
Chandler's totals:
2pt FGA= 353 or 706
2pt FGM= 241 or 482
3pt FGA= 2 or 4
3pt FGM= 0 or 0
FTA= 315
FTM= 217
Total SHOT attempts= 706+4+315= 1025
Total MADE attempst= 482+0+217= 699
699/1025= .682 or a TRUE TS% of .682.
Simple enough.
And of course it makes MUCH more sense than his ACTUAL TS% of .708 .[/QUOTE]
I ran tyson's stats through the true shooting formula and didn't get .708 which confused me too. Perhaps the .708 is accounting for times when he had and-1's? not all of his FT attempts used another possession. That could account for the 1% difference.
[QUOTE=ralph_i_el]I ran tyson's stats through the true shooting formula and didn't get .708 which confused me too. Perhaps the .708 is accounting for times when he had and-1's? not all of his FT attempts used another possession. That could account for the 1% difference.[/QUOTE]
I have never seen a stat which separates "and-1's", or technical FTAs. If it exists, then perhaps his TS% is correct.
But, do we have those from the players of the 60's, 70's, and 80's, as well? And again, I believe in 1982, the FTAs were changed. No more 3-to-make-2's, or single FTAs on none-shooting fouls (before five fouls.)
[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]BUT, what you are claiming is an EXACT TS%. Unless we KNOW, it is not measureable.
Some players obviously have far more "and-one's" than other's. Do we KNOW Wilt's and Shaq's? Yet, their TS%'s are lumped in with the same ARBITRARY .44 number as everyone else.
Same with the better FT shooters. Some of them probably take far more technical FTs during the season...yet, they are lumped in with everyone else.[/QUOTE]
Who is claiming an exact TS? The only way that would be possible is if the techs and and1s were measured for every player and then calculated into their number. That isnt practical so they just estimated it.
Your way is pretty much a lock to be way off, especially for better foul shooters who get to the line a lot.
[QUOTE=eklip]"True shooting" is just a name for the stat.
The stat isn't perfect, but it's close to being perfect. The margin of error is really neglectable. It's definitely not a reason not to use it.[/QUOTE]
I have seen those here who have tried to disparage Wilt's efficiency based on his poor FT shooting, and then using a TS% against him. The reality was, we simply don't know how many "and-1's" he had (but he likely had MANY...same with Shaq.) And furthermore, the FTAs at the time, surely had him with a higher EFFECTIVE FT% (and thereby a higher TS% as well), than his ACTUAL FT% (and actual TS%.)
NOR does Wilt's FT% take into account the FACT that his team's almost always shot FAR more FTAs than their opposition. Why? Because of Wilt's IMPACT at the line. Because of Chamberlain, his teammates were getting into the bonus much sooner, and more often..resulting in more attempts. Not to mention that opposing players were in foul trouble sooner, and either were playing a lessor defense, or were on the bench.
[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]
why, because taking high percentage shots is a bad thing?
besides they already have it, it's called a shot chart
BTW, a missed "and-1" LOWERS TS%. Players like Shaq and Wilt were "punished" in their TS%'s.
[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]BTW, a missed "and-1" LOWERS TS%. Players like Shaq and Wilt were "punished" in their TS%'s.[/QUOTE]They're not "punished" because they miss those shots
The stat is giving you exactly what it was meant to give
[QUOTE=tontoz]I already did. Lillard is a perfect example, as are Reggie Miller and Ray Allen.
[/quote] These are not examples of GOATs at all. Lillard, really. [Quote]
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. [/quote]
I got LoL ed at for using the two most dominant players in history to prove the value of a stat. They were the most feared because they were incredible in making shots. In the top ten of GOATS. 70% of them were ranked upper echelon in fg% at their positions. My guess is 70% or higher were never upper Echelon in TS%. One definitely has a closer relationship. And the one TS person can definitely be considered the outlier.
[Quote]
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. [/quote] nope, I'm only considering offense.
[Quote]
Do you think Dantley was as good on D and on the boards as Wilt and Shaq?[/quote]
There were plenty of threads here about best offensive players here and I'm one of the few bringing up Dantley. And I don't bring up TS%.
[Quote]
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. [/quote] Dantley as a pure scorer vs Gervin as a pure scorer. Both stayed around 30ppg and were primarily scoring. Most great scorers were ranked higher in FG% league wide than TS% which is probably related to the fact that more aggressive players lose their free throw shooting and three point touch as the game goes on.
TS% players are usually less aggressive players. And they usually don't play defense - save Stockton. Lebron played much better defense when his TS% was a 50% points lower. Could be coincidence. High TSers are usually efficient over aggressive type players. You need both type of players but the aggressors are almost always the leaders and dictate how the game is played - see OKC.
[QUOTE=Pointguard]These are not examples of GOATs at all. Lillard, really.
I got LoL ed at for using the two most dominant players in history to prove the value of a stat. They were the most feared because they were incredible in making shots. In the top ten of GOATS. 70% of them were ranked upper echelon in fg% at their positions. My guess is 70% or higher were never upper Echelon in TS%. One definitely has a closer relationship. And the one TS person can definitely be considered the outlier.
nope, I'm only considering offense.
There were plenty of threads here about best offensive players here and I'm one of the few bringing up Dantley. And I don't bring up TS%.
Dantley as a pure scorer vs Gervin as a pure scorer. Both stayed around 30ppg and were primarily scoring. Most great scorers were ranked higher in FG% league wide than TS% which is probably related to the fact that more aggressive players lose their free throw shooting and three point touch as the game goes on.
TS% players are usually less aggressive players. And they usually don't play defense - save Stockton. Lebron played much better defense when his TS% was a 50% points lower. Could be coincidence. High TSers are usually efficient over aggressive type players. You need both type of players but the aggressors are almost always the leaders and dictate how the game is played - see OKC.[/QUOTE]
:applause: :applause: :applause:
:cheers:
[QUOTE=Pointguard] They were the most feared because they were incredible in making shots. In the top ten of GOATS. 70% of them were ranked upper echelon in fg% at their positions. My guess is 70% or higher were never upper Echelon in TS%. One definitely has a closer relationship. And the one TS person can definitely be considered the outlier.
nope, I'm only considering offense.
.[/QUOTE]
This is one of the dumbest arguments i have ever seen on this site. Congrats! :bowdown:
Shaq and Wilt were feared because of their size/strength/skill, not because of their FG%. You simply don't have the mental capacity to understand that correlation does not equal causation.
Look at the FG% leaders right now. Brandan Wright is at the top. Is anyone afraid of him?
:facepalm
[B][I]If you had a brain that actually worked you would realize that the top guys in FG% are generally big men who rarely shoot from outside[/I].[/B] Big men who physically dominate their opponents also have the biggest impact on a teams defense which of course has no relevance to FG%. A top big man is more valuable than a top small man. Basketball 101
FG% is a measure of shooting, and a lousy outdated one at that. Trying to claim that it is somehow a defining characteristic of all time greats is simply moronic. There is a lot more to being a great player than just shooting from the field.
People get hung up on the whole .44 thing, but even when you change it to .5 it's a very minute change over the course of a season. It's used in an attempt to account for FTs that don't use possessions, but ultimately it doesn't change too much
[QUOTE=tontoz]This is one of the dumbest arguments i have ever seen on this site. Congrats! :bowdown:
Shaq and Wilt were feared because of their size/strength/skill, not because of their FG%. You simply don't have the mental capacity to understand that correlation does not equal causation. [/quote]Here's a lesson your parents never got to you: If you are going to be stupid at least be kind that way people might be able to tell what comes out your face is different than what comes out your behind.
You quoted me but weren't smart enough to understand the quote. I said "They were feared because of their incredible ability to make shots." Do you realize how much you imagined in your response above??? And you are showing mega failed arrogance on top of it.
And stop using words you don't understand. Correlation is in the manifestation: If its not in the Greats then why correlate.
[quote]
Look at the FG% leaders right now. Brandan Wright is at the top. Is anyone afraid of him?
:facepalm [/quote]
I never said it was comprehensive. PER measures production and strange folk pop up there as well.
[Quote]
[B][I]If you had a brain that actually worked you would realize that the top guys in FG% are generally big men who rarely shoot from outside[/I].[/B] Big men who physically dominate their opponents also have the biggest impact on a teams defense which of course has no relevance to FG%. A top big man is more valuable than a top small man. Basketball 101
FG% is a measure of shooting, and a lousy outdated one at that. Trying to claim that it is somehow a defining characteristic of all time greats is simply moronic. There is a lot more to being a great player than just shooting from the field.[/QUOTE]
Its simple then.... show us the value of TS % over FG% using GOATS. It has to have a practical manifestation in the best or its a stat that you are imagining has value. I don't mean to frustrate you but your deflating ego has been dancing around this long enough.
[QUOTE=Pointguard]Its simple then.... [B]show us the value of TS % over FG% using GOATS. [/B]It has to have a practical manifestation in the best or its a stat that you are imagining has value. I don't mean to frustrate you but your deflating ego has been dancing around this long enough.[/QUOTE]
There is your problem right there and you can't see it. Shooting stats are meant to measure shooting for ALL PLAYERS, GOOD AND BAD.
This GOAT crap is irrelevant nonsense.
Look at the top 10 in FG% right now. All are bigs.TS benefits smaller players who can hit 3s and free throws. It isn't that hard to grasp.
And when people make their lost of GOAT players they aren't going to be mentioning any 6'3" guys in the top 5.
SHOOTING STATS AREN'T MEANT TO MEASURE WHO THE GOAT's ARE. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR GRANITE SKULL. THEY ARE ONLY MEANT TO MEASURE SHOOTING, FOR ALL PLAYERS NOT JUST THE GOATS.
Shooting stats should be judged solely on how accurately they measure shooting. FG is the worst stat available at measuring shooting.
[QUOTE=tontoz]There is your problem right there and you can't see it. Shooting stats are meant to measure shooting for ALL PLAYERS, GOOD AND BAD.
This GOAT crap is irrelevant nonsense.
Look at the top 10 in FG% right now. All are bigs.TS benefits smaller players who can hit 3s and free throws. It isn't that hard to grasp.
And when people make their lost of GOAT players they aren't going to be mentioning any 6'3" guys in the top 5.
SHOOTING STATS AREN'T MEANT TO MEASURE WHO THE GOAT's ARE. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR GRANITE SKULL. THEY ARE ONLY MEANT TO MEASURE SHOOTING, FOR ALL PLAYERS NOT JUST THE GOATS.
Shooting stats should be judged solely on how accurately they measure shooting. FG is the worst stat available at measuring shooting.[/QUOTE]
:lol all stats are a measure. Get over yourself.
If its worth something it will be manifest in greatness. If its a stat of great value its going to show itself like scoring, rebounding, assist, fg%, per, drg, ortg do with the best. Its more of a second rate stat.
When I asked why did Magic TS better than Bird your brilliant mind said because he took less shots. :lol TS% can cloud otherwise discernable elements in the game because it lumps together different features/aspects of the game.
[QUOTE=Pointguard]:lol all stats are a measure. Get over yourself.
If its worth something it will be manifest in greatness. If its a stat of great value its going to show itself like scoring, rebounding, assist, fg%, per, drg, ortg do with the best. Its more of a second rate stat.
When I asked why did Magic TS better than Bird your brilliant mind said because he took less shots. :lol TS% can cloud otherwise discernable elements in the game because it lumps together different features/aspects of the game.[/QUOTE]What different elements of the game does it "lump together"? All it tells you is how many points were scored compared to how many scoring possessions were used. It's that simple.
[QUOTE=Pointguard]:lol all stats are a measure. Get over yourself.
If its worth something it will be manifest in greatness. If its a stat of great value its going to show itself like scoring, rebounding, assist, fg%, per, drg, ortg do with the best. Its more of a second rate stat.
When I asked why did Magic TS better than Bird your brilliant mind said because he took less shots. :lol TS% can cloud otherwise discernable elements in the game because it lumps together different features/aspects of the game.[/QUOTE]
You still dont get it. Not surprised. If you don't understand that it is easier to maintain a higher TS taking fewer shots then i dont even know what to say.
I think i know the source of your confusion regarding FG%. I will try to make this simple enough for you to understand. I am not sure if it is within my abilities but i will try.
The most efficient shots in basketball are at the rim. Good players typically shoot 60%+ at the rim and that isn't even taking into account all the trips to the foul line. Those shots are also the most heavily defended.
GOAT players are frequently the best getting to the rim and finishing. Shaq/Wilt did it primarily with size/athleticism although i think Shaq's skills were underrated.
Jordan and Lebron were probably the best at their respective positions at getting to the rim and finishing. That increases their FG% and makes fools like you think it is a worthwhile stat.
The problem is that FG% isn't meant to identify GOAT players. It is only trying to accurately measure a players shooting from the field. It does a poor job of this as can clearly be seen below:
Player A scores 20 ppg shooting 45% from the field. No 3 attempts.
Player B scores 20 ppg shooting 45% from the field, taking 6 treys a game at 40%.
These two players have the exact same FG% yet player B is a far better shooter than player A. That is why FG% is worthless. Player A is shooting only 45% on 2 point shots. Player B is probably shooting roughly 50% on 2 point shots.
I am sure you are thinking that you can look at FG% and 3pt% separately. But you really can't since 3 pt attempts are counted both in FG% and in 3 pt %.
[B]In order to really look at everything separately you have to look at [SIZE="6"]2pt%[/SIZE], 3pt% and ft%.[/B] Another option is to look at EFG% and FT% if you don't like TS.
But FG% is a crap stat.