Printable View
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.
[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 .