Pompous words from Kblaze volume 422: If you can prove it you are probably wrong.

:applause:

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]Isnt that pretty much saying that teams that make their shots while keeping the other team from making theirs tend to win? Might as well say playing basketball well makes you good at basketball.

For a team I can see how that would be a factor in winning because really all a team needs to do is outscore the opponent. For a single player compared to another there are way too many issues unrelated to the individuals.

Its almost like using simple games won and lost to judge players. You can judge a teams ability by it(for the most part). Not players.[/QUOTE]

No, there's a difference, here's an example.

The 07 Spurs where 2nd in TS% at 56.1% (Utah was 6th at 55.1%).

In FG% they where tied for 2nd with Utah at 47.4%.
The difference comes when you look at the 3pt shooting where SA shot 38.1% (3pt rate of 24.7%) and Utah was at 33.5% (3pt rate of 16.3%)
So San Antonio shot both more of their shots form 3pt, and made them at a better clip.

Utah had a FT rate of 38% while San Antonio was at 31.3%

They where tied with Utah in Off. efficiency at 106.7

So Utah and San Antonio was equal in points scored pr. 100 possessions, but Utah shot a lot more FTs, San Antonio made up the difference with their 3pt shooting where they shot both more and better, and with a slightly better FT% (75.1% vs 74.3%)



In Opp. FG% the Spurs where 4th where as in Opp. TS% they where 1st.

Orlando was 3rd in Opp. FG% but only 10th in Opp. TS% !!!!!!!

Orlandos Opp. shot 44.2 FG%
San Ant Opp. shot 44.3 FG%
So basically teams playing Orlando and SA shot the same % from the field, but when playing vs SA you got 4.3pts less per. 100 possessions

Opp. 3pt FG%: SA where 2nd at 33.4% and Orlando was 10th at 35.3%
Opp. 3pt rate: SA where 1st at 17% and Orlando was 13th at 21.6%

Opp. FT rate: SA where 2nd at 27.2% and Orlando was 29th at 37.6%

So the Opp. FT and 3pt rate makes the difference between the Opp. TS% and the Opp. FG%.



----------------------



Let's go a bit further and look at the opponents shot locations vs the #1 opp. TS% ranked SA defense.

Opp. Rim shot%: 56.2% (2nd) on 24.1 att prg (11th)

Opp. <10 Feet shot%: 41.7% (15th) on 11 att prg (29th)

Opp. 10-15 Feet shot%: 41.1% (24th) on 8.7 att prg (28th)

Opp. 16-23 Feet shot%: 40.6% (22th) on 20.4 att prg (11th)

Opp. 3pt shoot: 50.1 eFG% (2nd) on 13.4 att prg (2nd)

Those are some telling stats. You can see they did a good very good job of not letting opp. score at the rim while still not giving up that many att.

In the <10 FT area, which will most often be floaters and contested shots because you couldn't get to the rim, they where only an average defense in terms of opp. shot% and almost last in att. shots prg.

In the 10-15 FT area, which would be the ultimate mid-range area right? They where almost last in both opp. FG% and allowed shots.

In the 16-23 FT area they where near the bottom in opp. FG% and in the middle in terms of opp. att prg.

As for 3pointers they where 2nd in opp. shot % and 2nd in allowed att. prg.


So basically a defense with a lot of hard closeouts to not allow/contest the opponents 3pt shoots. Good help defense to not contest shots at the rim without giving up fouls (2nd in opp. FT rate)
That leads to a lot of dribble pull ups and floaters. You can see that they where almost last in terms of giving up shots and those shots being hit from the 10-15 FT area, yet they still had the #1 defense in terms of opp. TS% and 2nd points per 100 possessions.

Like I said in a previous post, this is the reason Popovich has been ahead of the curve for so long. It's not just that he's had good defensive players, but that his teams play the right type of defense in terms of minimizing the opponents efficiency, and that is getting the other team to shoot from the mid-range area as much as possible without fouling.

[QUOTE]I think that's been blaze's whole point. people are focusing way too much on individual stats. And looking at these boards, you can't deny that[/QUOTE]

No not at all, and I hate that there's so much focus on individuals in a team game.




[QUOTE=dutchguy]
To a point you're right of course, but the more you have to interpret a stat, the less it means. If a stat puts Kerr ahead of KAJ and you say "but obviously that doesn't mean Kerr is a better player" then what does the stat mean? still, point taken.

Right now, something interesting is happening: Boston is well on it's way to the finals. You can find no stat at all that could've predicted this. But if you watched the games, you could see none of the players (except KG for a bit) were falling off, playing (significantly) worse than before. They were struggling as a team. TO's, playing inconsistent, not gelling. To me, this meant that if they could pull it together they would be instant contenders. You can't make that prediction from stats, but you can see it.

Also this makes for a much more interesting conversation. What's going on? There are an infinite number of possibilities and solutions to discuss and the outcomes will be more interesting and better predictions. With stats, the solutions are always finite and in this case they didn't show the problem at all, so you couldn't come up with a solution or a prediction.

I'd rather talk about Rondo's hustle than about the number of rebounds he has. I'd rather talk about the magic's bodylanguage than their turnovers. I'd rather talk about the great passes Ray made that were not assists but led to good things than just the passes that were counted as assists[/QUOTE]

Lots of good points that I agree with.

But as for the TS% being a flawed stat, it just doesn't make any sense. All you have to do to interpret it is look at shoots per game, basically the same with FG%.

You could also just look at PPS, but he said that stat was bad as well.

You just can't tell me that a stat that combines the 3 ways possible of scoring in a basketball game is a bad stat. He used the reasoning that guys who shoot a lot of 3's do it because they're not good at something else and therefore it's not a valid ability in terms of being a basketball player, and that's a bunch of BS, as long as there's a 3pt line it's a valid ability to be able to shoot from that distance.
Same thing with FT's, as long as they count for a point pr. make it's a valid ability to create and make FT's for yourself and your team.

stats are helpful [U][B]after[/B][/U] the fact. they help interpret why and team won/lost. but they are always a partial picture and needs interpretation with other factors

intangibles play a huge part in winning/losing. pure stats do not cover well the psychological parts of any game. here are a few areas:

-timing of missed/made shots
-hustle plays
-fights
-being benched
-choking
-the affect of the crowd
-lucky plays/shots
-coach's involvement/lack thereof
-injuries
-chemistry of the team
when a team "gives up"

[QUOTE=ZenMaster]No not at all, and I hate that there's so much focus on individuals in a team game.[/QUOTE]
?? so you agree? :)

[QUOTE]
But as for the TS% being a flawed stat, it just doesn't make any sense. All you have to do to interpret it is look at shoots per game, basically the same with FG%.

You could also just look at PPS, but he said that stat was bad as well.

You just can't tell me that a stat that combines the 3 ways possible of scoring in a basketball game is a bad stat. He used the reasoning that guys who shoot a lot of 3's do it because they're not good at something else and therefore it's not a valid ability in terms of being a basketball player, and that's a bunch of BS, as long as there's a 3pt line it's a valid ability to be able to shoot from that distance.
Same thing with FT's, as long as they count for a point pr. make it's a valid ability to create and make FT's for yourself and your team.[/QUOTE]

Agree that the argument that shooting 3s is some sign of weakness is nonsense, just as ft's. Still, Blaze made a rant, a provoking opinion, in which he didn't say stats are all useless, but that stats are vastly overrated. And that's the same with TS% even when combined with the volume of shots taken. The picture you get from that is very minimal.
I see your side of the story, but it doesn't take away his.

[QUOTE=dutchguy]?? so you agree? :)



Agree that the argument that shooting 3s is some sign of weakness is nonsense, just as ft's. Still, Blaze made a rant, a provoking opinion, in which he didn't say stats are all useless, but that stats are vastly overrated. And that's the same with TS% even when combined with the volume of shots taken. The picture you get from that is very minimal.
I see your side of the story, but it doesn't take away his.[/QUOTE]

Yeah i highly agree with the individualistic approach in a team sport is getting obnoxious.

I don't agree that the TS% is vastly overrated. The factors that go into having a good TS% on offense and forcing a bad TS% on defense are so big for winning in basketball.

A good TS% is evident of a team shooting a lot of lay ups (breaking down the defense), hitting 3's at a good rate (stretches the defense and is often a sign of many and good ball reversals which is in direct correlation with defensive breakdowns), and shooting FT's which puts pressure on the other team in terms of foul trouble which ultimately leads to more bad defensive decisions and more defensive breakdowns.

[QUOTE=ZenMaster]Yeah i highly agree with the individualistic approach in a team sport is getting obnoxious.

I don't agree that the TS% is vastly overrated. The factors that go into having a good TS% on offense and forcing a bad TS% on defense are so big for winning in basketball.

A good TS% is evident of a team shooting a lot of lay ups (breaking down the defense), hitting 3's at a good rate (stretches the defense and is often a sign of many and good ball reversals which is in direct correlation with defensive breakdowns), and shooting FT's which puts pressure on the other team in terms of foul trouble which ultimately leads to more bad defensive decisions and more defensive breakdowns.[/QUOTE]
Would you say that if I show you two teams and their TS% from a game against each other, that the team with the higher TS% is always the winner (except for some exception that proves the rule)?
Because I wouldn't be surprised if that was only the case 60% or something.

ok finally sat down and read the op

kblaze, you rock!

[QUOTE=dutchguy]Would you say that if I show you two teams and their TS% from a game against each other, that the team with the higher TS% is always the winner (except for some exception that proves the rule)?
Because I wouldn't be surprised if that was only the case 60% or something.[/QUOTE]

I'd say that the vast majority of the time the team will have the higher TS%, I think it's higher than 60%, way higher but I'll look into it a little bit.

I my former post I was very close to writing that if I could only have one stat to look at from a game or season to determine the winner(not being points scored obv :) ) I would pick offensive TS% vs defensive TS%.

[QUOTE=gts]ok finally sat down and read the op

kblaze, you rock![/QUOTE]


[B]QFT[/B]

If only ISHers had better reasoning skills like The Blaze..

I agree about the rabid over use of stats on this site. I understand people need some sort of arbitrary measuring stick in an argument but it isn't the end all be all of a players ability. It only irks me because people don't even comment about the actual game and the observations they make while watching and if they do its an overreaction and not a genuine look at the players body of work. Everyone thought deron Williams was the best PG after the first round and now its rondo. And most people based these beliefs on stats during a 5 or 6 game stretch.

[QUOTE=dutchguy]Would you say that if I show you two teams and their TS% from a game against each other, that the team with the higher TS% is always the winner (except for some exception that proves the rule)?
Because I wouldn't be surprised if that was only the case 60% or something.[/QUOTE]

OK so I did a probable finals match up of the Celtic and the Lakers for their games so far in these playoffs.

In games the Lakers have played this post season the team with the highest TS% have won 10 out of 12 times. In the 2 games where the team with the lowest TS% won the games where won by 3 points and 1 point.

In games the Celtics have played this post season the team with the highest TS% have won 12 out of 14 times. In the 2 games where the team with the lowest TS% won the games where decided by 2 and 9 points.

What's with the backlash against stats? They are a great tool to help you determine which players and teams are better. If you look at a combination of most advanced metrics, they give you a good idea of who is playing well and who isn't whether it's on offense or defense. People who don't know how to interpret the stats or use them wrong ("this guy has a higher FG% so he is a better shooter.") are the problem. Sure there are many intangible aspects to all sports but the main stuff comes down to are you a productive player on both ends or not? That can be captured using many statistics. Someone in this thread mentioned intangible aspects like "effect of the crowd". Really? I mean come on, do you realize how small of an effect this has on the production of players? This can also be shown by looking at home/away splits among other things.

Unless someone watches every single game of every single team/player, you should be using stats in your argument because it gives you a bigger sample for a basis of comparison. No, the 10 games you watched of Chris Paul and Deron Williams this year to compare them is not enough. Baseless arguments is what pisses me off about ISH. People spouting off claims without any sort of proof to support them.

Deeper statistical analysis is a good thing. Why not try to become smarter about the game? Why not try to look for things that will be better predictors of future performance? People are finally coming around on this when it comes to baseball and it's becoming a valuable tool. Basketball is a different sport obviously but learning more about the game is not a bad thing.

[QUOTE=ZenMaster]OK so I did a probable finals match up of the Celtic and the Lakers for their games so far in these playoffs.

In games the Lakers have played this post season the team with the highest TS% have won 10 out of 12 times. In the 2 games where the team with the lowest TS% won the games where won by 3 points and 1 point.

In games the Celtics have played this post season the team with the highest TS% have won 12 out of 14 times. In the 2 games where the team with the lowest TS% won the games where decided by 2 and 9 points.[/QUOTE]
:bowdown:
Ok I gotta hand it to you, you do good research. So definitely more than 60% and this will probably translate to a larger sample, or even league wide. Now for the next challenge:oldlol:
If this stat really means anything, it must be able to predict something. I could also use a stat to tell you which team won a certain game: The final score.
The point of using these stats is that they give insight in A: the way/style a team plays (which i think it doesn't much unless you compare off and def TS% for both teams) B: how this team will perform in the future. I'm interested if that can be done, I don't think so, because TS% depends too much on the opponent. If it doesn't predict, than it's just as easy to just look at the score.

[QUOTE=dutchguy]:bowdown:
Ok I gotta hand it to you, you do good research. So definitely more than 60% and this will probably translate to a larger sample, or even league wide. Now for the next challenge:oldlol:
If this stat really means anything, it must be able to predict something. I could also use a stat to tell you which team won a certain game: The final score.
The point of using these stats is that they give insight in A: the way/style a team plays (which i think it doesn't much unless you compare off and def TS% for both teams) B: how this team will perform in the future. I'm interested if that can be done, I don't think so, because TS% depends too much on the opponent. If it doesn't predict, than it's just as easy to just look at the score.[/QUOTE]


I think it definitely covers very well how the best teams defend. TS% is a direct indicator of covering the 3pt line and the paint without giving up a big amount of FT's.

As for the offensive side I couldn't help but think of the Houston Rockets. Daryl Morey is a firm believer in this stuff and the Rockets have a tendency to overachieve compared to the talent of their roster.

2009 is a great example of this. While the Lakers had the way better point differential for the season they where taken to 7 games in their series with the Rockets, the only team to do so vs the Lakers, there's a reason for this:

Even though the Lakers where the team with the highest point differential in the WC for the season at +7.7 they where not the team with the biggest differential in TS%, the Rockets where. Lakers had a TS% diff. of 2.5 vs Rockets 3.2

This is in direct effect with how they play and what kind of shots Adelman has designed the offense to get. You can see that off these charts, which has Rockets players peak in rim shots and 3pts attempted, the same shots that highly affect TS% outside of FT shooting. I'm pretty sure you'd see somewhat equal charts for teams like Cleveland, Boston and Orlando. The Rockets though go all the way.

[IMG]http://www.red94.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/rockets_shooting.png[/IMG]

[IMG]http://www.red94.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/rockets_pg_shooting.png[/IMG]

[IMG]http://www.red94.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/rockets_swing_shooting.png[/IMG]

[IMG]http://www.red94.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/rockets_bigs_shooting.png[/IMG]



In the EC last year the Cavs where the team with the highest point differential for the season, but not the highest TS% diff, that was Orlando.
Cleveland had a pt diff of +8.9 and a TS% diff of +4.5
Orlando had a pt diff of +7.5 but a TS% diff of +5.1

Orlando ended up beating Cleveland when it mattered.

I used the comparison to point differential because there's a strong belief amongst media NBA "experts" that point differential is the strongest indicator of how teams will perform in the playoffs.

A couple of other notes concerning last season:

1) Boston was only 0.1 behind Orlando for the best TS% diff and they had a .8 larger point diff. I wouldn't put it past them that they would have been in the finals if it wasn't for the KG injury.

2) The Lakers is kind of the team that stands out in these stats compared to their success, but I think it can be explained.
First of all their offense isn't designed to maximize 3pt and rim shots opportunities. I have heard Phil comment that he sometimes regret not getting his teams more 3pt shots, but that he has stuck with the triangle offense because it's an equal opportunity offense and that's important as it fits his basketball philosophy of having everybody involved.

But he understands the importance of the 3pt shot and that you have to defend against it, especially these last few years. This is shown during his teams playoffs runs when they win:

[U]Opp. 3pt FG% in the playoffs for the Lakers:[/U]
2010: 5th 32% going to win
2009: 2nd 31% won
2008: 8th 35% lost finals
2007: 10th 35% 1st rnd exit
2006: 14th 40% 1st rnd exit
2004: 6th 31% lost finals
2003: 14th 40% 2nd rnd exit
2002: 6th 31% won
2001: 3rd 27% won
2000: 10th 37% won