Printable View
Fvck TS%!
Im the only one from the times here people looked at FG% to decide if someone is hitting their shots? Im the only one who remembers when comparison threads didnt have one season TS% and the other one FG% selected.. Im the only one who likes his stats raw?
#FvckTS%
Get off my lawn you damn kids
but TS% looks good because its usually above 50..
Back in my day above 50's usually didnt look good..
[QUOTE=CeltsGarlic]Fvck TS%!
Im the only one from the times here people looked at FG% to decide if someone is hitting their shots? Im the only one who remembers when comparison threads didnt have one season TS% and the other one FG% selected.. Im the only one who likes his stats raw?
#FvckTS%[/QUOTE]
It stands for True Shooting Percentage you dumbass.
[QUOTE=dunksby]It stands for True Shooting Percentage you dumbass.[/QUOTE]
Boy, you dont start what you cant handle.
[QUOTE=CeltsGarlic]Boy, you dont start what you cant handle.[/QUOTE]
Do you have bad breath? Cause I can't handle talking to people who have foul breath.
OP is a dumbass. If you don't like TS then use EFG which doesn't include free throws.
FG actually penalizes players for shooting 3s. If a guy takes a lot of 3s and shoots them at 39% that is good but it typically brings down his FG%
Look at Lillard vs Wall
FG%
Lillard 45.4%
Wall 44.8%
Lillard's is better by .6%
EFG%
Lillard 53.7%
Wall 47.9%
Lillard's is better by 5.8%
FG% is useless unless you are looking at players who don't shoot 3s.
[QUOTE=tontoz]OP is a dumbass. If you don't like TS then use EFG which doesn't include free throws.
FG actually penalizes players for shooting 3s. If a guy takes a lot of 3s and shoots them at 39% that is good but it typically brings down his FG%
Look at Lillard vs Wall
FG%
Lillard 45.4%
Wall 44.8%
Lillard's is better by .6%
EFG%
Lillard 53.7%
Wall 47.9%
Lillard's is better by 5.8%
FG% is useless unless you are looking at players who don't shoot 3s.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, so you also need to use common sense when looking at stats like FG, but I guess thats not for you.
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=CeltsGarlic]Yeah, so you also need to use common sense when looking at stats like FG, but I guess thats not for you.[/QUOTE]
This from a guy who didn't even know what TS stands for. :lol
Common sense tells us that FG% is basically worthless in the 3 point era. Better to use a stat that doesn't require interpretation.
[QUOTE=CeltsGarlic]Fvck TS%!
Im the only one from the times here people looked at FG% to decide if someone is hitting their shots? Im the only one who remembers when comparison threads didnt have one season TS% and the other one FG% selected.. Im the only one who likes his stats raw?
#FvckTS%[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://venturebeat.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/angry-old-man-with-computer.jpg[/IMG]
goofy, lame azz stat nerd bullcrap
the idea that there is such a thing as a "true" percentage is so inane, so stupid...I can't.
PPP has NOTHING to do with percentage
they just comingled two completely separate precepts and masquerade is as being "advanced".
The stat basically tells us that a player get's more points more making a 3 point basket as opposed to a 2, just absolutely brilliant stuff :rolleyes: .
"True" completely ignore MISSED shots.
So that if a player make 40 out of 100 three point shots he's just as effective/efficient as a player who makes 60 out of 100 2 point attempts.
They both "effectively" or "truly" shot 60%
NO THEY DID NOT!
you cant award percentage point because they happen to have the same point TOTALS,[B] the 20 extra MISSED shots don't factor in AT ALL.[/B]
Shaq scoring a 120 points on 60% is not nowhere near the same as Kobe scoring 120 on 40%, only a simpleton who thinks he's an intellectual thinks like that (like goofy azz Hollinger and the other "advanced" stat nerds).
OP is the type of person who hates TS% but loves PER and WS.
[QUOTE=riseagainst]OP is the type of person who hates TS% but loves PER and WS.[/QUOTE]
That sh!t stupid too.
Advanced stats like TS, PER, WS, etc. were only created in order to prop up manufactured "legends" like LeBron and tear down real legends like MJ, Kobe, etc.
They are to be dismissed, ridiculed then ignored by anyone who knows and understands basketball. The same should be done to anyone who uses advanced stats in their arguments.
:kobe:
[QUOTE=Optimus Prime]Advanced stats like TS, PER, WS, etc. were only created in order to prop up manufactured "legends" like LeBron and tear down real legends like MJ, Kobe, etc.
They are to be dismissed, ridiculed then ignored by anyone who knows and understands basketball. The same should be done to anyone who uses advanced stats in their arguments.
:kobe:[/QUOTE]
In other words the advanced stats expose Kobe's inefficiency so you don't like them. OK
[QUOTE=CeltsGarlic]Fvck TS%!
Im the only one from the times here people looked at FG% to decide if someone is hitting their shots? Im the only one who remembers when comparison threads didnt have one season TS% and the other one FG% selected.. Im the only one who likes his stats raw?
#FvckTS%[/QUOTE]
Yes ODB is that you???
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ITLNzPoEqs[/url]
its like all the kobe kids looked at efficiency stats and saw that their daddy is at the low end in just about every way. then they stumbled upon a new made up stat, TS%. i think TS% became a thing only in the last 6-7 years. at that moment they saw their hope. they were like "*uck yeah!! TS% thats what im talking about. finally we have our secret weapon to combat those who would dare defile our god." now thats what theyve been running with ever since.
oh, and harden hard-ons have now joined jumped on the TS% bandwagon too.
[QUOTE=Optimus Prime]Advanced stats like TS, PER, WS, etc. were only created in order to prop up manufactured "legends" like LeBron and [B]tear down real legends like MJ, Kobe, etc.[/B]
They are to be dismissed, ridiculed then ignored by anyone who knows and understands basketball. The same should be done to anyone who uses advanced stats in their arguments.
:kobe:[/QUOTE]
How so when MJ is first in PER and 4th in WS all time. Only TS favours big men over guards, but Im sure he is at the top 10 among guards there.
You mean it shows Kobe's true colors, and thats why it sucks??? :confusedshrug:
I don't get why it's so hard for you guys to understand. It's just points per scoring possession.
If a player took 10 shots and shot 6 FT's, he used about 13 possessions to score. That's 26 points he could've potentially scored. If he ends up scoring 15 points, that means he scored 15 points of the 26 points (57.7%) that he would've scored if he would've made every shot and every FT.
If two teams have the same turnovers and offensive rebounds (meaning they both have the same amount of possessions), the team that scores more per possession (aka TS%) will always win the game.
[QUOTE=tontoz]OP is a dumbass. If you don't like TS then use EFG which doesn't include free throws.
FG actually penalizes players for shooting 3s. If a guy takes a lot of 3s and shoots them at 39% that is good but it typically brings down his FG%
[/QUOTE]
Isn't that the point? To know who is more efficient at actually getting the ball to go through the basket? Attempting a 3 is not that difficult and if you shoot too many 3's then you're clearly not good enough to get yourself higher % shots.
[QUOTE=CeltsGarlic]Fvck TS%!
Im the only one from the times here people looked at FG% to decide if someone is hitting their shots? Im the only one who remembers when comparison threads didnt have one season TS% and the other one FG% selected.. Im the only one who likes his stats raw?
#FvckTS%[/QUOTE]
FG% means nothing.
If you're against TS% you're a ****ing luddite
[QUOTE=Nash]Isn't that the point? To know who is more efficient at actually getting the ball to go through the basket? Attempting a 3 is not that difficult and if you shoot too many 3's then you're clearly not good enough to get yourself higher % shots.[/QUOTE]
:facepalm
[QUOTE=Nash]Isn't that the point? To know who is more efficient at actually getting the ball to go through the basket? Attempting a 3 is not that difficult and if you shoot too many 3's then you're clearly not good enough to get yourself higher % shots.[/QUOTE]
:facepalm
Are you saying Ray Allen wasn't good enough to get higher percentage shots? He just settled for 3s that he made at 40% because he wasn't that good?
What exactly are higher percentage shots? Do you think shooting 45% from 10 feet is better than shooting 40% from 3?
[QUOTE=Young X]I don't get why it's so hard for you guys to understand. It's just points per scoring possession.
.[/QUOTE]
call it that then, don't conflate it with PERCENTAGES, they are TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PRECEPTS
a percentage is how many times x happens vs how many time y happens THAT'S IT PERIOD
again if Kobe makes 40 3's in a 100 attempts, that's 120 points.
This means he made 40% of his attempts, he missed 60 shots and scored .83 points per possession.
Shaq makes 60 2 point baskets in 100 attempts, that's also 120 points
This means he made 60% of his attempts, he missed 40 shots and also scored .83 points per possession.
They have they same points per possession, they DID NOT "truly" or "effectively" or "virtually" or "practically" or "essentially" or "truly" shoot the same percentage...PERIOD!
It's corny pseudo-intellectual BULLCRAP is what is. I don't need a goofy azz nerd stat to tell me how much a guy scores for every shot he takes. You get 3 points for shot beyond 24' 9, 2 for shots inside of that and 1 for FT's/
"effective", "true", "essential" it's crap lawyers do, take a bag feces and wrap a nice pretty like bow around don't change the fact that it's crap. It's linguistic chicanery and it REALLLLY annoys because you goofballs actually think you're brilliant because you can divide and multiply.:mad:
Seeing people [I]still[/I] struggle with the basic concept of TS% is amazing
[QUOTE=chazzy]Seeing people [I]still[/I] struggle with the basic concept of TS% is amazing[/QUOTE]
Perfect example of those pseudo-intellectuals I was talking about smh.
[QUOTE=Akhenaten]Perfect example of those pseudo-intellectuals I was talking about smh.[/QUOTE]
You're coming off as a huge idiot.
It's a weighted %
Because the point values of shots in basketball are weighted differently.
More than one arithmetic step and all the sudden it's confusing nerd talk to you lol
To me its kind of simple:
Take your top ten GOAT and see how they rank in both categories. FG% is definitely a better indicator of greatness. In fact, TS% often works against the GOATs or relegates them to the middle of the pack in almost every case! The most dominant players consistently are high FG% people. especially position wise.
Magic totally destroys Bird in TS%, playoffs and regular season. As much as 75 % points in Bird's healthy prime ('84). That's phenomenal. Yet you will hear frequently on these boards about how Bird was in a different league. Yet, Magic was in a different league TS% wise.
Over the years I would check TS% with players that scored very high and Dantley stood out among the 30ppg scorers - a threshold few players ever get to but there is usually one or two that do attain it within a five year span. Adrian Dantley is the TS% king. You guys never talk about Dantley. Its definitely a stat that is misleading.
[QUOTE=Pointguard]To me its kind of simple:
Take your top ten GOAT and see how they rank in both categories. FG% is definitely a better indicator of greatness. In fact, TS% often works against the GOATs or relegates them to the middle of the pack in almost every case! The most dominant players consistently are high FG% people. especially position wise.
Magic totally destroys Bird in TS%, playoffs and regular season. As much as 75 % points in Bird's healthy prime ('84). That's phenomenal. Yet you will hear frequently on these boards about how Bird was in a different league. Yet, Magic was in a different league TS% wise.
Over the years I would check TS% with players that scored very high and Dantley stood out among the 30ppg scorers - a threshold few players ever get to but there is usually one or two that do attain it within a five year span. Adrian Dantley is the TS% king. You guys never talk about Dantley. Its definitely a stat that is misleading.[/QUOTE]
You have to look at TS% in the context of usg%. Magic had higher TS%'s than Bird, but only had USG%'s around 20% (average. 100%/5 players). Bird had usg%'s of 25-30%.
If you don't factor in threes and free throws, that's dumb. Especially if the player shoots a lot of both.
[QUOTE=Pointguard]To me its kind of simple:
Take your top ten GOAT and see how they rank in both categories. FG% is definitely a better indicator of greatness. In fact, TS% often works against the GOATs or relegates them to the middle of the pack in almost every case! The most dominant players consistently are high FG% people. especially position wise.
Magic totally destroys Bird in TS%, playoffs and regular season. As much as 75 % points in Bird's healthy prime ('84). That's phenomenal. Yet you will hear frequently on these boards about how Bird was in a different league. Yet, Magic was in a different league TS% wise.
Over the years I would check TS% with players that scored very high and Dantley stood out among the 30ppg scorers - a threshold few players ever get to but there is usually one or two that do attain it within a five year span. Adrian Dantley is the TS% king. You guys never talk about Dantley. Its definitely a stat that is misleading.[/QUOTE]
:wtf:
Correlation does not equal causation. You also have to look at overall production when looking at GOAT.
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.
TS is not a measure of scoring volume, only of efficiency. And it does a much better job than FG.
[QUOTE=ralph_i_el]You have to look at TS% in the context of usg%. Magic had higher TS%'s than Bird, but only had USG%'s around 20% (average. 100%/5 players). Bird had usg%'s of 25-30%.[/QUOTE]
Ether.
You people should memorize chess moves more often. Especially the variations just even after a few moves to include counters.
TS% is a regular season stat.
In the playoffs when the game slows down, fouls aren't called on a consistent basis, and games are decided by just a few points, it's those who can score on command that succeed. Although underrated, 2P% is a good indicator for that and it is one of my favorite stat. Jordan was the master of it out on the perimeter.
Let's say there are 1.5 minutes left and the game is within 4 points. Even though someone is around a 36% (pretty good) 3-point shooter, you simply can't have an empty possession with a missed shot. 3-point shots are almost rendered useless for star players in these situations. The ball should be in their hands and jacking 3-point shots on tight defense isn't going to cut it. Driving to the hoop and looking for a foul when the refs are swallowing their whistles isn't a good move either. This is when the mid-range game and ability to dish out to open sharp shooters is extremely important. Pressure defense and getting out in the transition game is just as vital too.
I understand the importance of TS%, but to me, it's more like a "The game is over now, let me check how efficient I scored overall." For FG%, it's like an in game "Damn, I'm missing my shots. I gotta take and make better shots."
I dont like TS%, but only because of the .45 that is thrown in the formula. And yes, I know why it is put in there.
[QUOTE=riseagainst]OP is the type of person who hates TS% but loves PER and WS.[/QUOTE]
Never said that.
Cant even tell who leads the league in those tbh.
[QUOTE=ralph_i_el]
It's a weighted %
Because the point values of shots in basketball are weighted differently.
[/QUOTE]
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=navy]I dont like TS%, but only because of the .45 that is thrown in the formula. And yes, I know why it is put in there.[/QUOTE]
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.