Give me the best and worst player on each of these short lists please.

[tpols]

Not really because what’s required then is a breakdown that includes positional issues, offense you play in, the number of times you do each of them and so on. Never mind the abstract issues like how much it matters who in particular misses a shot when your team as a whole is gonna miss about the same number anyway. It takes you down a deeper hole of variables and actual basketball discussion. True shooting is just lazy. And it’s fine to be lazy. We don’t always have time to consider why Cedric Maxwells advances shooting numbers are what they are as opposed to Glen Rice and what that says about their total games.

But if you are trying to make a real comparison you make time....or you’re just making noise.

well yea... you have to compare apples to apples.

shaq didnt play like harden. Compare Shaq's numbers to the hakeem's, kareem's, and wilt's. Thats fine to do with ORTG or TS.

anybody can say any number doesnt matter if they just make silly comparisons like comparing 5th options to 2nd options or guys who play nothing alike.

[Whoah10115]

Efficiency? People already dont care if you make more of your shots if your combined 3(field goal, 3 point, and FT) percentages are worse.

There is absolutely no reason to combine the 3 into one number that still requires you look at the other 3 to know how it was reached....but people arent gonna stop doing it. Ive seen people say Shaq was worse on offense than any number of people specifically because of his lack of "Efficiency". 4 of the last 5 years Hardens TS was higher in the playoffs than Shaqs in 2000 and ive absolutely heard people bring it up.

Stupid people. But it comes up.

Well, unfortunately I can't argue this.

Shaq has gone up in recent years tho.

[Whoah10115]

Why use any stat then? Like ever?

Having basic knowledge of the players role isn't asking too much. That's all that is required for TS to matter.

TS doesn't matter.

Saved you time.

[Roundball_Rock]

The other issue with TS % is it distorts positional comparisons. Generally, the smaller the player, the better the FT %--but these also are the players with the worst FG %.

The difference between someone going 13/20 and 17/20 should also be factored in. One is contributing more points on the same attempts, there should be a stat that tells us this.

It should--but I would separate FT's out from eFG %. TS % would imply the 13/20 guy shouldn't be taking 20 FTA's because he is "inefficient" at it--instead he should have taken lower percentage FGA attempts, which doesn't make sense.

TS % also obscures the damage done to a team by a guy going 9 for 25 (assume all twos) who happens to go 9 from 10 from the line. TS % says that is a decent outing: 27 points on 25 shots but obscures the damage done by such an inefficient player taking that many FGA and wasting possessions.

[Phoenix]

The other issue with TS % is it distorts positional comparisons. Generally, the smaller the player, the better the FT %--but these also are the players with the worst FG %.

Exactly. James Harden, for example, is a career 61% TS scorer but basically shoots 44% from the field since playing for Houston. Shaq in his prime hit 60% once, in 2003.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

I'll use TS% time to time because posters I communicate with here and the other board do.

The only issue I have is the affinity with freethrows.

Freethrows are part of the game. Understandable. What I don't like is a mediocre or average 'efficient player' can resemble an efficiency monster. You're a volume chucker who shoots too many bad shots, but because you can make a freethrow...I'm supposed to call you efficient now? That's not ALWAYS the case but that part is dumb.

[Kblaze8855]

well yea... you have to compare apples to apples.

shaq didnt play like harden. Compare Shaq's numbers to the hakeem's, kareem's, and wilt's. Thats fine to do with ORTG or TS.

anybody can say any number doesnt matter if they just make silly comparisons like comparing 5th options to 2nd options or guys who play nothing alike.

Thing is....comparing two basketball players you DONT have to compare apples to apples. Nobody sits befuddled because they were asked if they want Mutombo or Glen Rice. The very act of ranking players requires you list players of different types. Especially if you go all time. Even among similar positions guys play very different games in the same basic role. You dont need apples to apples to compare basketball ability. Only to compare stats. The problem is....so many people act like they are the same thing.

I dont give a **** about Paul George not playing like Larry Johnson or Mark Jackson or whoever. I can evaluate them just fine on their own or against eachother. Basketball has no problem there.

Stats do. Which is why they are often out of place in a basketball talk.

[Overdrive]

Kg - best
Chris Paul
David Robinson
Durant
Dirk
Nash - worst







Tmac
Pierce
Vince Carter
Grant Hill
Paul George - worst
Leonard - best





Giannis - best
Karl Malone
James Harden - worst
Isiah Thomas
Doctor J





****Trolls delight****
Kyrie
Pau Gasol
Pippen - best
Dumars
Klay - worst
****Trolls Delight****






Jason Kidd
Steph Curry - best
Gary Payton - worst
Wade
Clyde Drexler










Lillard
Ray Allen - best
Reggie Miller
Mitch Richmond
Manu - worst






Ben Gordon
Lou Williams
Barbosa
Jason Terry - best
John Starks
Jamal Crawford - worst



Magic Johnson
Tim Duncan
Shaq - best
Kobe - worst
Hakeem



Some were pretty tough and the worst close to the best.

[Carbine]

The other issue with TS % is it distorts positional comparisons. Generally, the smaller the player, the better the FT %--but these also are the players with the worst FG %.



It should--but I would separate FT's out from eFG %. TS % would imply the 13/20 guy shouldn't be taking 20 FTA's because he is "inefficient" at it--instead he should have taken lower percentage FGA attempts, which doesn't make sense.

TS % also obscures the damage done to a team by a guy going 9 for 25 (assume all twos) who happens to go 9 from 10 from the line. TS % says that is a decent outing: 27 points on 25 shots but obscures the damage done by such an inefficient player taking that many FGA and wasting possessions.

Actually if you read my post - TS implies the player shooting 13/20 should absolute continue doing that because it's a TS% of 74..... That's unheard of efficiency.

[Whoah10115]

Quick edit. Just realized I picked McGrady below Paul George. No offense to George, but I have to take that back and edit.

[Carbine]

Also, that scenario you posted about 9/25 but going 9/10 FT is not a good example on your part.

That's a 46 TS% so it values that type of performance in the right light generally speaking, an inefficient scoring output.

[Kblaze8855]

It seems people are really over Steve Nash. Which seems odd to me in this day of "But look at the shooting numbers...." and orating and all that nonsense. Nash gives you 16-19 a game...shoots 52-55%....42-45% from 3...might shoot 89% from the line in a bad year. Guy had a 51/43/95 season scoring 17 a game leading the league in assists winning 55 games and losing to the champs in the WCF. And he was 36. IT wasnt nearly his best season.

We not giving a **** anymore?

Just curious. People used to get on me for not praising him more.

[HBK_Kliq_2]

Kg
Chris Paul
David Robinson
Durant
Dirk
Nash

Best: Dirk
Worst: Nash







Tmac
Pierce
Vince Carter
Grant Hill
Paul George
Leonard

Best: Leonard
Worst: Paul George





Giannis
Karl Malone
James Harden
Isiah Thomas
Doctor J

Best: Giannis
Worst: Isaiah Thomas





****Trolls delight****
Kyrie
Pau Gasol
Pippen
Dumars
Klay
****Trolls Delight****

Best: Pippen
Worst: Klay






Jason Kidd
Steph Curry
Gary Payton
Wade
Clyde Drexler

Best: Wade
Worst: Gary Payton










Lillard
Ray Allen
Reggie Miller
Mitch Richmond
Manu

Best: Manu
Worst: lillard






Ben Gordon
Lou Williams
Barbosa
Jason Terry
John Starks
Jamal Crawford

Best: Jason Terry
Worst: Barbosa



Magic Johnson
Tim Duncan
Shaq
Kobe
Hakeem

Best: Shaq
Worst: Kobe

[Carbine]

It seems people are really over Steve Nash. Which seems odd to me in this day of "But look at the shooting numbers...." and orating and all that nonsense. Nash gives you 16-19 a game...shoots 52-55%....42-45% from 3...might shoot 89% from the line in a bad year. Guy had a 51/43/95 season scoring 17 a game leading the league in assists winning 55 games and losing to the champs in the WCF. And he was 36. IT wasnt nearly his best season.

We not giving a **** anymore?

Just curious. People used to get on me for not praising him more.

It's definitely centered around the stigma that he is a complete liability on defense.

It's not actually true, but that's the reason for it.

[ArbitraryWater]

First I did specify that Robinson was shit in 94. I didn't neglect to mention that. In 95 he got shat on by Hakeem but Dream was shitting on everyone that year. They played in different eras and against different players so that needs to be weighed too. David Robinson in 2011 is probably better than in 1995 expressly because the league wasn't as physical, which is why he wasn't as good in the playoffs compared to the regular season. 2009 Dwight Howard was more raw than peak Robinson and got to the finals, so I'm looking at the two in a vacuum. How well do you think Dirk's game holds in the 95 playoffs?

Dirk also did have 07 as the first seed. That's probably as low as Robinson's playoff blunders. He had less of those, and higher highs in the postseason.

No idea, and I don‘t think it matters. I just compare what they did in their respective era.