Printable View
[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?