22/29/9 on 58 fg%....Is there a playoff statline GOATer than This?

[aj1987]

Like I said, in and of itself, the stat is not biased. My point was that 3's are too much of an advantage over 2's and that is why it unfairly props up 3 point shooters. I mean I get what you're saying.

But just take a look at the all-time leaders.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/...ct_career.html

It consists of 3 type of players primarily:

1) Low volume bigs who shot most of their shots right at the basket and can shoot the FT a bit (Tyson Chandler #3, James Donaldson #5, Darryl Dawkins #11, Bobby Jones #12)

2) Great 3 point shooters who can shoot the FT (Curry #7, Miller #8, Nash #17, Korver #22, Redick #23)

3) GOAT level low post players who were incredibly efficient down low (Gilmore #2, Dantley #6, Barkley #9, McHale #17)

Ok...? What does any of that have to do with TS% being a bad metric to measure efficiency?

[ClipperRevival]

Ok...? What does any of that have to do with TS% being a bad metric to measure efficiency?

It hampers great scorers who shoot mostly the 2 and rely a lot on the mid-range. Tell me how many guys on that TS% list were great players. Sure you had some but some were just specific role players in one of the categories I described. That's not saying THAT MUCH in the grand scheme of things.

What I do know is that MJ, Kobe and Wade have 14 rings between the 3 and the mid-range game was a big part of their games, especially MJ and Kobe. I don't care what the analytics say, the mid-range is a huge part of the game for a great, perimeter scorer. That's my point.

I could give a rats ass if Tyson Chandler is #3 and James Donaldson is #5 all time in TS%. WTF does that mean? NOTHING.