Total shooting this total shooting that

[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.