PDA

View Full Version : Stats question



DreamShaker
09-16-2013, 05:50 PM
A few questions on shooting stats:

What would you consider a good FG% for a volume scorer, and where is the cut off for it being too low?

And what would you consider to be a good TFG% for a volume scorer, and what is the cut off for being too low?

Also, is there a better stat out there to measure shooting?

IndyRealist
09-16-2013, 05:55 PM
FG% is pretty outdated. eFG and TS are the benchmark measures, though personally I like ppp (points per possession).

DreamShaker
09-16-2013, 06:03 PM
FG% is pretty outdated. eFG and TS are the benchmark measures, though personally I like ppp (points per possession).

So what would you consider to be on a good mark on those stats? Say someone who is scoring 25-30ppg, what would you say the mark of those stats would be to be considered Efficient?

tredigs
09-16-2013, 06:33 PM
~25+ PPG with a 54-57 TS% is solid, and above that is very good. If you're reaching 60+ TS in that range, you're the elite. For eFG% (so, not including FT% but weighing 3's and 2's appropriately) you want to be up over 50%. If you're in the 55%+ range with that volume you're killing it.

abe_froman
09-16-2013, 06:42 PM
A few questions on shooting stats:

What would you consider a good FG% for a volume scorer, and where is the cut off for it being too low?

And what would you consider to be a good TFG% for a volume scorer, and what is the cut off for being too low?

Also, is there a better stat out there to measure shooting?
its highly dependent on what position your playing,what era your talking about/what the league average is.but for fg i'd go about 43/44 is usually the mendoza line

and as others have said efg,ts,ppp are probably better for judging.

So what would you consider to be on a good mark on those stats? Say someone who is scoring 25-30ppg, what would you say the mark of those stats would be to be considered Efficient?
for ts i'd say 54% and above is good
efg-you want above 47

tredigs
09-16-2013, 06:44 PM
Like any stat though, you have to adjust accordingly when they're the #1 and drawing the opposing teams top defender or not. Which at the 25+ PPG range they probably are. But for eFG if I had to give a %range I'd go 49-52 = solid. 52-55 = very good. 55+ elite.

tredigs
09-16-2013, 06:47 PM
its highly dependent on what position your playing,what era your talking about/what the league average is.but for fg i'd go about 43/44 is usually the mendoza line

and as others have said efg,ts,ppp are probably better for judging.

Yeah true, but the good thing about eFG and TS is that they do some of that adjusting for you in weighing 3's more heavily (knocks players standard FG%, not their eFG%), and being that guards are generally better foul shooters, they'll get the boost there too in TS.

IndyRealist
09-16-2013, 07:51 PM
How the player scores also adjusts the "break even" points slightly. The nature of the game dictates that you have both shooters and post players, so the comparison is not simply TS vs. TS, but rather how far above average each of them are at their roles.
http://i1362.photobucket.com/albums/r686/fallenmagus/Untitled_zps6768f5da.jpg

nycericanguy
09-16-2013, 07:53 PM
All within context... Derrick Rose's career TS% is 53%, his eFG is 49%

Melo is career 55% & 48%

Gallinairi is career 58 & 50... is he a better scorer than Rose and Melo? Of course not...

Also guys with a lot of help tend to be more efficient. Wade, LBJ, Pierce, Ray Allen...etc... all of those guys became more efficient when they got to play with other stars. Melo for instance, the year he played with AI.. had career high in TS & eFG at 57/51.

Also those numbers heavily favor guys that get more FT's, like Harden.

Chronz
09-16-2013, 07:57 PM
O.RTG is the best barometer for efficiency that is easily accessible, PPP is the purist form of individual efficiency.

DreamShaker
09-16-2013, 08:50 PM
I think this thread should be helpful. Great answers. James Harden is a great example of how FG% can be decieving. His FG% is only 44%, but his advanced stats tell a different story. Places like ESPN will talk about Harden being effecient, then look at that 44%, and are confused. It is good to know what is considered effecient with advanced stats. I am still learning!

Jamiecballer
09-16-2013, 08:58 PM
there is no great answer to this IMO because we can't quantify things like the importance of getting other players involved. i'm sure others will try and give you the straight math of it though.

Pablonovi
09-16-2013, 09:03 PM
I think this thread should be helpful. Great answers. James Harden is a great example of how FG% can be decieving. His FG% is only 44%, but his advanced stats tell a different story. Places like ESPN will talk about Harden being effecient, then look at that 44%, and are confused. It is good to know what is considered effecient with advanced stats. I am still learning!

Hey DreamShaker,
I agree about the usefulness/ helpfulness of this thread; I'm glad you asked because like you say, "I am still learning!" Some fine contributions from a number of stand-out posters already have been made.

tredigs
09-16-2013, 09:10 PM
All within context... Derrick Rose's career TS% is 53%, his eFG is 49%

Melo is career 55% & 48%

Gallinairi is career 58 & 50... is he a better scorer than Rose and Melo? Of course not...

Also guys with a lot of help tend to be more efficient. Wade, LBJ, Pierce, Ray Allen...etc... all of those guys became more efficient when they got to play with other stars. Melo for instance, the year he played with AI.. had career high in TS & eFG at 57/51.

Also those numbers heavily favor guys that get more FT's, like Harden.

That's why he mentioned 25-30 ppg scorers, Gallo's a 15 ppg scorer. Obviously it's tougher to maintain that efficiency on a higher volume as a #1. And eFG doesn't favor guys who get more FTs like Harden. It doesn't even consider it. TS% will - so long as you hit them.

slaker619
09-16-2013, 09:13 PM
+23.5PPpg & 50-60TS%

tredigs
09-16-2013, 09:16 PM
How the player scores also adjusts the "break even" points slightly. The nature of the game dictates that you have both shooters and post players, so the comparison is not simply TS vs. TS, but rather how far above average each of them are at their roles.
http://i1362.photobucket.com/albums/r686/fallenmagus/Untitled_zps6768f5da.jpg

Nice rundown on their comparison thanks, though this does confirm my thoughts that eFG and TS help to regulate themselves for position (there being <2% difference between PG and C in both, and not even 1% with TS).

beasted86
09-16-2013, 10:09 PM
Good is 50% or more. Cutoff @ 45%.

Most people will over complicate this by going into TS% but its not necessary.

tredigs
09-16-2013, 10:18 PM
Good is 50% or more. Cutoff @ 45%.

Most people will over complicate this by going into TS% but its not necessary.

Do FT's not count? It's the highest% shot in the game, I'd argue it's necessary. Also, 3's weighted the same as 2's makes no sense, which is why FG% alone is useless.

beasted86
09-16-2013, 10:54 PM
The reason it isn't necessary is because we are talking about high usage volume scorers.

If I have a player shooting 15+ times a game and he is hitting 50%+ of his total shots that is a good rate. FTs and 3s can make the difference when comparing that group of players within themselves but none the less they would all be good players you are comparing.

tredigs
09-16-2013, 11:03 PM
The reason it isn't necessary is because we are talking about high usage volume scorers.

If I have a player shooting 20+ times a game and he is hitting 50%+ of his total shots that is a good rate. FTs and 3s can make the difference when comparing that group of players within themselves but none the less they would all be good players you are comparing.

Let's take two theoretical + very possible scenarios.

Player A: 9-18 FG (doesn't take 3's) + 6-11 FT (55%). He's a 24 PPG scorer on 50% FG.

Player B: 8-18 FG (4-9 from 3) + 8-9 FT (89%). He's a 28 PPG scorer on 44% FG.

Player B has a significantly lower FG% on the same attempts per game and takes less FT's, but he's obviously a much better scorer. That's why eFG and TS matter, and why FG% is useless.

beasted86
09-17-2013, 12:13 AM
Let's take two theoretical + very possible scenarios.

Player A: 9-18 FG (doesn't take 3's) + 6-11 FT (55%). He's a 24 PPG scorer on 50% FG.

Player B: 8-18 FG (4-9 from 3) + 8-9 FT (89%). He's a 28 PPG scorer on 44% FG.

Player B has a significantly lower FG% on the same attempts per game and takes less FT's, but he's obviously a much better scorer. That's why eFG and TS matter, and why FG% is useless.

What difference do either of these examples make? They are both good players.
So you basically did nothing but make the point I said above.

I didn't pay attention to the OP's "TFG%" remark because there is no such stat as far as I know.

And at the end of the day scoring efficiency based on TS% is still kind of useless because all of that changes in the clutch, and some guys have more intangibles. TS% also tells us nothing about how many baskets are assisted or how many turnovers. So it is a poor single stat judgement of scoring ability just as FG% is. Unfortunately there are a lot of stat junkies that will rely way heavily on TS% like it is a single stat barometer for efficiency.

tredigs
09-17-2013, 12:33 AM
What difference do either of these examples make? They are both good players.
So you basically did nothing but make the point I said above.

I didn't pay attention to the OP's "TFG%" remark because there is no such stat as far as I know.

And at the end of the day scoring efficiency based on TS% is still kind of useless because all of that changes in the clutch, and some guys have more intangibles. TS% also tells us nothing about how many baskets are assisted or how many turnovers. So it is a poor single stat judgement of scoring ability just as FG% is. Unfortunately there are a lot of stat junkies that will rely way heavily on TS% like it is a single stat barometer for efficiency.

Haha OK, so you're saying you don't make a distinction between varying levels of "good"? "Lebron's good". "Dwight's good". "Bosh is good". That's what you're going for? Of course there are other metrics that matter and situations make a difference, I'm just showing you why eFG and TS (as two examples) are clearly, unarguably more useful than FG%.

I haven't seen anyone who uses TS% as a single stat barometer for efficiency and I see quite a bit here, so I find that tough to believe.

beasted86
09-17-2013, 01:38 AM
Haha OK, so you're saying you don't make a distinction between varying levels of "good"? "Lebron's good". "Dwight's good". "Bosh is good". That's what you're going for? Of course there are other metrics that matter and situations make a difference, I'm just showing you why eFG and TS (as two examples) are clearly, unarguably more useful than FG%.

I haven't seen anyone who uses TS% as a single stat barometer for efficiency and I see quite a bit here, so I find that tough to believe.
Well isn't that what the OP asked about, how to tell if a player is good?

As for the bold part:
What?! Sorry man, you clearly haven't been on here. At least 90% of the posts comparing who is the better or more efficient scorers start and end with TS%. I really don't see how this can even be discussed if you are a PSD member. I'm not talking about overall comparisons, but pretty much all scoring related threads.

Chronz
09-17-2013, 02:27 AM
Not a single statistician on this planet would agree with beasted and its simply because his math is wrong.

Lakersfan2483
09-17-2013, 03:19 AM
A few questions on shooting stats:

What would you consider a good FG% for a volume scorer, and where is the cut off for it being too low?

And what would you consider to be a good TFG% for a volume scorer, and what is the cut off for being too low?

Also, is there a better stat out there to measure shooting?

Without taking into account advance stats, etc... and just using the old system of measuring field goal pct. I would say .45 pct and above for a volume scorer that avgs. 25 or more a night is a good shooting pct. I am talking .45pct for wing players, obviously not bigs.

beasted86
09-17-2013, 03:23 AM
Not a single statistician on this planet would agree with beasted and its simply because his math is wrong.

Who cares about statisticians? This is a web forum where everything is subjective. :shrug:

TS% and most of these stats are flawed and are only part of a large group of comparable metrics. One guy shot 15-20 from the field all 2s. Another guy shot 10/20 from the field... all 3s. I need two points to win the game. All probability remains constant for both players of them hitting their next shot...who do you give the ball to? Are they actually equal because TS% says so? I hope not.

This is an arbitrary and extreme example, but it demonstrates how TS% isn't always more accurate than FG%. One guy gives you a 75% chance of winning, and the other guy gives you a 50% chance.

Chronz
09-17-2013, 10:33 AM
Not a single statistician on this planet would agree with beasted and its simply because his math is wrong.

Who cares about statisticians? This is a web forum where everything is subjective. :shrug:

TS% and most of these stats are flawed and are only part of a large group of comparable metrics. One guy shot 15-20 from the field all 2s. Another guy shot 10/20 from the field... all 3s. I need two points to win the game. All probability remains constant for both players of them hitting their next shot...who do you give the ball to? Are they actually equal because TS% says so? I hope not.

This is an arbitrary and extreme example, but it demonstrates how TS% isn't always more accurate than FG%. One guy gives you a 75% chance of winning, and the other guy gives you a 50% chance.
Its a thread topic entitled, STATS question. I think their findings are fairly relevant. I dont know why you insist on this crusade but misusing statistics doesn't expose any arbitrary standard.

Heres whats not subjective, over the course of an 82 game season, the team that operates at peak efficiency is the one thats going to win more games. The reasons should obvious. Heres the thing, when you define efficiency as broadly as fg% and stack it up to a standard as specific as ts% or even better, ortg, you find that fg% simply doesn't produce as many wins. Its mathematically impossible and historically proven, so regardless of any minute flaw in ts%, its still an outright improvement on fg%.

Now about your hypothetical, say you needed a 3, would you still rely on fg%?

Chronz
09-17-2013, 10:34 AM
A few questions on shooting stats:

What would you consider a good FG% for a volume scorer, and where is the cut off for it being too low?

And what would you consider to be a good TFG% for a volume scorer, and what is the cut off for being too low?

Also, is there a better stat out there to measure shooting?

Without taking into account advance stats, etc... and just using the old system of measuring field goal pct. I would say .45 pct and above for a volume scorer that avgs. 25 or more a night is a good shooting pct. I am talking .45pct for wing players, obviously not bigs.
Who was more efficient, chauncey billups or iverson?

Pablonovi
09-17-2013, 12:51 PM
Not a single statistician on this planet would agree with beasted and its simply because his math is wrong.

Hey High Horse,
Too funny! But then, when has incorrect math every stopped anybody?

Pablonovi
09-17-2013, 12:54 PM
Who was more efficient, chauncey billups or iverson?

Hey High Horse,
Brutally direct-to-the-point are we?

And, you really want to start up another AI-related flame war?

Mind you, I am neither making fun nor disagreeing with; but there ARE times when you're utter directness, and in so few words, just tear me up.

Pablonovi
09-17-2013, 12:56 PM
Its a thread topic entitled, STATS question. I think their findings are fairly relevant. I dont know why you insist on this crusade but misusing statistics doesn't expose any arbitrary standard.

Heres whats not subjective, over the course of an 82 game season, the team that operates at peak efficiency is the one thats going to win more games. The reasons should obvious. Heres the thing, when you define efficiency as broadly as fg% and stack it up to a standard as specific as ts% or even better, ortg, you find that fg% simply doesn't produce as many wins. Its mathematically impossible and historically proven, so regardless of any minute flaw in ts%, its still an outright improvement on fg%.

Now about your hypothetical, say you needed a 3, would you still rely on fg%?

Hey High Horse,
On the other hand, if I don't care who wins; I WOULD rather see a game-ending 3 from 40+ feet; one that spends some time on the rim, rolling around, before ....

Chronz
09-17-2013, 01:55 PM
Hey High Horse,
Brutally direct-to-the-point are we?

And, you really want to start up another AI-related flame war?

Mind you, I am neither making fun nor disagreeing with; but there ARE times when you're utter directness, and in so few words, just tear me up.

I could have used someone else but AI is the first guy that comes to mind because they were traded for another and Reggie Miller was talking about how equally efficient they were. It was laughable

Heatcheck
09-17-2013, 02:19 PM
45% fg, for any scorer, if you cant score at 45% you don't need to be a volume anything, you need to learn how to pass the ball.

The fact that your 3 pt shot could be worth more if you make it means **** too me, so that's that

nycericanguy
09-17-2013, 02:24 PM
45% fg, for any scorer, if you cant score at 45% you don't need to be a volume anything, you need to learn how to pass the ball.

The fact that your 3 pt shot could be worth more if you make it means **** too me, so that's that

Harden shot 43.8% last year, Rose shot .445% his MVP year.

Another thing you gotta consider is most guys shoot a TON more 3's these days, so of course their overall % will be lower.

Look at Melo for instance, he shot 45%, but he took 6.2 three's per game, way more than DOUBLE his career average. But he hit them at 38%, well above league average, so you can't really complain.

Heatcheck
09-17-2013, 02:34 PM
Harden shot 43.8% last year, Rose shot .445% his MVP year.

Another thing you gotta consider is most guys shoot a TON more 3's these days, so of course their overall % will be lower.

Look at Melo for instance, he shot 45%, but he took 6.2 three's per game, way more than DOUBLE his career average. But he hit them at 38%, well above league average, so you can't really complain.

your right its just a benchmark, a little over little under, whatever...hardens is a little low for my taste, does that mean I would pick rose over him? no. would I, on a one year basis pick wades 50% over him? yes. you choose to shoot the 3, you don't get excused for taking a lower % shot...Melo had a very good shooting year by the way

beasted86
09-17-2013, 02:37 PM
Its a thread topic entitled, STATS question. I think their findings are fairly relevant. I dont know why you insist on this crusade but misusing statistics doesn't expose any arbitrary standard.

Heres whats not subjective, over the course of an 82 game season, the team that operates at peak efficiency is the one thats going to win more games. The reasons should obvious. Heres the thing, when you define efficiency as broadly as fg% and stack it up to a standard as specific as ts% or even better, ortg, you find that fg% simply doesn't produce as many wins. Its mathematically impossible and historically proven, so regardless of any minute flaw in ts%, its still an outright improvement on fg%.

Now about your hypothetical, say you needed a 3, would you still rely on fg%?

Yes, but the weight of all stats is subjective. Stacking up FG% vs. TS% is pointless because you'll rarely if ever find two players who match up exactly with TS% being the only difference. What about USG%? TOV%? Assisted rate?

How about specific defined roles? Like I've said, TS% tells you little to nothing about each players actual ability to hit any given shot, FG% is better in that regard. TS% would have you believe that Ray Allen and Chauncey Billups were equal efficiency scorers for a couple years because Allen didn't go to the FT line as much. Going to the FT line more than one other player tells you nothing about who would be able to hit more shots as a 3PT specialist if you needed one for your team and both Billups and Allen were available free agents. TS% would be the stupidest way to compare those 2 players in that regard.


45% fg, for any scorer, if you cant score at 45% you don't need to be a volume anything, you need to learn how to pass the ball.

The fact that your 3 pt shot could be worth more if you make it means **** too me, so that's that

Agreed.

beasted86
09-17-2013, 02:43 PM
Harden shot 43.8% last year, Rose shot .445% his MVP year.

At the end of the day, you can't just look at FG% or TS% for any given player. A lot of things go into account. TS% says Harden at his 43.4% base FG% is better than Tony Parker at his 52.2% base FG% because he shoots and makes more 3s and gets to the FT line more often.

As far as I'm concerned if I had the option of both running my offense, give me Parker, and it's probably not close, but that's just my opinion.

nycericanguy
09-17-2013, 02:55 PM
your right its just a benchmark, a little over little under, whatever...hardens is a little low for my taste, does that mean I would pick rose over him? no. would I, on a one year basis pick wades 50% over him? yes. you choose to shoot the 3, you don't get excused for taking a lower % shot...Melo had a very good shooting year by the way

You realize shooting 38% from 3 is much better than shooting 50% from 2 right?

The 3 is not a bad shot, the long 2 is the worst shot though.

That's why the league is moving more and more away from long 2's... guys are either taking it to the rim or shooting 3's... or mid range shots.

I look at advanced stats, but I don't swear by them like a lot of people on here do. It's all within context.

D-Leethal
09-17-2013, 03:14 PM
Yes, but the weight of all stats is subjective. Stacking up FG% vs. TS% is pointless because you'll rarely if ever find two players who match up exactly with TS% being the only difference. What about USG%? TOV%? Assisted rate?

How about specific defined roles? Like I've said, TS% tells you little to nothing about each players actual ability to hit any given shot, FG% is better in that regard. TS% would have you believe that Ray Allen and Chauncey Billups were equal efficiency scorers for a couple years because Allen didn't go to the FT line as much. Going to the FT line more than one other player tells you nothing about who would be able to hit more shots as a 3PT specialist if you needed one for your team and both Billups and Allen were available free agents. TS% would be the stupidest way to compare those 2 players in that regard.



Agreed.

I agree with the bold. I really don't understand why getting an aggregate picture is so much more telling/important/useful than splitting them up. Obviously there are times where one way or the other should be preferred, but I think TS% can tend to be misleading, especially for guys who shoot a great clip from the FT line and have the fortune of getting handed trips there whenever somebody sneezes on them. To me, TS% is more of a cheatsheet/cliff notes that gives you a snapshot but doesn't give you the details of the whole store.

I'd rather see what someone shoots from 3, shoots from the FT line, shoots from 2pt FG to judge them as a shooter than using TS% and I think you get a clearer picture that way as well. Its less broadscope and more defined.

Heatcheck
09-17-2013, 03:21 PM
You realize shooting 38% from 3 is much better than shooting 50% from 2 right?

The 3 is not a bad shot, the long 2 is the worst shot though.

That's why the league is moving more and more away from long 2's... guys are either taking it to the rim or shooting 3's... or mid range shots.

I look at advanced stats, but I don't swear by them like a lot of people on here do. It's all within context.

38% is very good. but how many 3s do most first options (usually the volume scorer on the team) take?
and really thats not what I was talking about, I was referring to advanced stats, I feel more or less the same about them

Chronz
09-18-2013, 10:55 AM
Yes, but the weight of all stats is subjective. Stacking up FG% vs. TS% is pointless because you'll rarely if ever find two players who match up exactly with TS% being the only difference. What about USG%? TOV%? Assisted rate?
Not seeing whats subjective when its superiority is entirely proven and mathematically sound. Whatever weakness you think your exposing holds true for fg%.
Im not getting your excuses because we are in fact comparing the 2 stats. We can see which is more relevant in an everything else being equal comparison by looking at the same player/team.




How about specific defined roles? Like I've said, TS% tells you little to nothing about each players actual ability to hit any given shot, FG% is better in that regard.
But why would that matter when the thread topic is about efficiency and its proper cutoff. Fg% is woefully outmatched in that job. What if you need a 3? Fg% is far worse in that regard but thats because its not meant to capture that, same thing here. Ts% tells you something much more important, and it translates into more wins than plain ol fg%.



TS% would have you believe that Ray Allen and Chauncey Billups were equal efficiency scorers for a couple years because Allen didn't go to the FT line as much. Going to the FT line more than one other player tells you nothing about who would be able to hit more shots as a 3PT specialist if you needed one for your team and both Billups and Allen were available free agents. TS% would be the stupidest way to compare those 2 players in that regard.
If this were free agency and I wanted a 3pt specialist, fg% would actually be the stupidest measure to look at. As it would tell you nothing about his proficiency shooting nor the bottom line of his efficiency.
Seeing how this is a thread about efficiency, we would only use ts% to measure the success rate of a players overall scoring rate.

Floor% are used for determining the probability of any shot going in. 3p% is what measures the rate of 3s going in, and ppp/ts% are the ultimate barometers for SEASON LONG efficiency.

I dont know why youre trying to misuse statistics, whatever point youre trying to get across, it gets lost without any factual backing behind it.


45% fg, for any scorer, if you cant score at 45% you don't need to be a volume anything, you need to learn how to pass the ball.

The fact that your 3 pt shot could be worth more if you make it means **** too me, so that's that
Why wouldn't you put stock into the direction the league is clearly heading to? Heres the facts jack, fg% is 100% incapable of measuring any important measure of efficiency, you can be a 40% shooter and be more efficient than a 48% guy, its a shame you wouldn't be able to spot him.

Chronz
09-18-2013, 11:07 AM
Harden shot 43.8% last year, Rose shot .445% his MVP year.

Another thing you gotta consider is most guys shoot a TON more 3's these days, so of course their overall % will be lower.

Look at Melo for instance, he shot 45%, but he took 6.2 three's per game, way more than DOUBLE his career average. But he hit them at 38%, well above league average, so you can't really complain.

your right its just a benchmark, a little over little under, whatever...hardens is a little low for my taste, does that mean I would pick rose over him? no. would I, on a one year basis pick wades 50% over him? yes. you choose to shoot the 3, you don't get excused for taking a lower % shot...Melo had a very good shooting year by the way
Nobody is asking for excuses, they are asking for proper credit because of the fact that the 3 IS worth more pts. When you account for this, you find its not actually a low% shot, the midrange/deep2 is the lowest% shot. Thats why its going extinct in favor of more 3s.

Chronz
09-18-2013, 11:23 AM
I agree with the bold. I really don't understand why getting an aggregate picture is so much more telling/important/useful than splitting them up.

Because of ratios. You can have guys with similar %s across the board but wind up with different levels of efficiency. You can technically account for this by looking at their cumulative fgas but ts% can take care of that more easily. They add it up so that we can quantify its influence on winning.




Obviously there are times where one way or the other should be preferred,
Depends on the question as all these stats are meant to measure different things. By and large, fg% is the less informative and thus the less influential to a teams bottom line.



but I think TS% can tend to be misleading, especially for guys who shoot a great clip from the FT line and have the fortune of getting handed trips there whenever somebody sneezes on them. To me, TS% is more of a cheatsheet/cliff notes that gives you a snapshot but doesn't give you the details of the whole store.
What makes it misleading if those pts still count? Wouldn't you want the more informative snapshot?



I'd rather see what someone shoots from 3, shoots from the FT line, shoots from 2pt FG to judge them as a shooter than using TS% and I think you get a clearer picture that way as well. Its less broadscope and more defined.
You get the clearer picture when you look at them all, which is why you supplemented
fg% with other rates but if you had to choose between fg% vs ts%, you would be better served as a gm with the stat that captures more of the action.

How would you judge the bottom line of that individual efficiency..
You still need the number that adds it all up because of the effects of fga ratios.

Hawkeye15
09-18-2013, 12:42 PM
At the end of the day, you can't just look at FG% or TS% for any given player. A lot of things go into account. TS% says Harden at his 43.4% base FG% is better than Tony Parker at his 52.2% base FG% because he shoots and makes more 3s and gets to the FT line more often.

As far as I'm concerned if I had the option of both running my offense, give me Parker, and it's probably not close, but that's just my opinion.

The point of efficient scoring is getting the most points on the board in the least amount of shots. Hence why TS% is exponentially more valuable than FG%.

Hawkeye15
09-18-2013, 12:44 PM
Nobody is asking for excuses, they are asking for proper credit because of the fact that the 3 IS worth more pts. When you account for this, you find its not actually a low% shot, the midrange/deep2 is the lowest% shot. Thats why its going extinct in favor of more 3s.

Rudy Gay and Michael Beasley scoff at you

Heatcheck
09-18-2013, 12:53 PM
Nobody is asking for excuses, they are asking for proper credit because of the fact that the 3 IS worth more pts. When you account for this, you find its not actually a low% shot, the midrange/deep2 is the lowest% shot. Thats why its going extinct in favor of more 3s.

I never said the long 2 wasn't the worst shot in the game, but going to the rim is the best shot in the game. im just saying the fact that its worth 3pts doesn't excuse you from shooting 30% for 3. your hurting more than your helping.

Heatcheck
09-18-2013, 12:58 PM
Why wouldn't you put stock into the direction the league is clearly heading to? Heres the facts jack, fg% is 100% incapable of measuring any important measure of efficiency, you can be a 40% shooter and be more efficient than a 48% guy, its a shame you wouldn't be able to spot him.

i would LOVE for you to identify this 40% shooter who is more efficient than a 48%. and then tell me youd rather have the guy whos shooting 40% on your team.

beasted86
09-18-2013, 01:21 PM
The point of efficient scoring is getting the most points on the board in the least amount of shots. Hence why TS% is exponentially more valuable than FG%.

If that's how you guys see it fine, but I don't see it that way.

A player could theoretically have a higher FG% @ equal attempts, higher 3PT% @ equal attempts, and higher FT% at lower attempts, and score more PPG, but have a lower TS% than another player due solely to the FTA disparity.

How TS% would tell you how the first vs second player would thrive in a shooting role is beyond me given the above scenario. The first player would hit all of his given shots at a higher percentage no matter where they came from, while the 2nd player would only be able to get to the FT line more often, which probably wouldn't happen as often in a shooting type role lowering his supposed efficiency advantage. You would end up signing the worst free agent of the 2 for that given role if you went by TS%.

tredigs
09-18-2013, 01:51 PM
i would LOVE for you to identify this 40% shooter who is more efficient than a 48%. and then tell me youd rather have the guy whos shooting 40% on your team.

I'll take that.

Chauncey Billups: http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/billuch01.html

Rajon Rondo: http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/rondora01.html

For scoring alone, I will take Chauncey Billups and his 40% FG over Rondo and his 48% FG. All day, every day.

beasted86
09-18-2013, 02:12 PM
i would LOVE for you to identify this 40% shooter who is more efficient than a 48%. and then tell me youd rather have the guy whos shooting 40% on your team.

Big base FG% differences happen all the time. Like the example I gave above with Tony Parker at 52.2% FG and James Harden at 43.4% FG... Harden has the higher TS%.

TS% is altered the most by FTA. A player can have a higher FG%, 3PT%, and FT%, but a lower TS% because of FTA.

Heatcheck
09-18-2013, 02:30 PM
I'll take that.

Chauncey Billups: http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/billuch01.html

Rajon Rondo: http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/rondora01.html

For scoring alone, I will take Chauncey Billups and his 40% FG over Rondo and his 48% FG. All day, every day.

A) the phrase "for scoring alone" is kind of broad. scoring more points? creating shots on his own? whos shooting is conducive of a good offense? plus I asked who youd rather have on your team, not "if your looking for a specific skill, who would you rather have on your team?".

B) scoring isn't rondos value, I don't think anyone really focuses on his fg%. the thread was about volume scorers, so I assume scoring would be the players main contribution to the team.

C) Honestly, Rondo takes it to the rim and Billups takes more jumpers, its pretty clear to cant see how a team wouldn't benefit more having rajon rondo.

tredigs
09-18-2013, 02:32 PM
Big base FG% differences happen all the time. Like the example I gave above with Tony Parker at 52.2% FG and James Harden at 43.4% FG... Harden has the higher TS%.

TS% is altered the most by FTA. A player can have a higher FG%, 3PT%, and FT%, but a lower TS% because of FTA.

Exactly, it just comes down to scoring ability. TS% doesn't care how you got there, but it does encompass the only 3 ways you can do it. Unlike FG, which could care less if you're incapable of drawing contact or hit it at 40% rather than 90% when you do. It also doesn't know or care if you're Steve Novak and only hit 3's, or Kendrick Perkins and never hit one in your life. That's actually another good example of a 41% and 46% FG shooter last year. One being a super efficient shooter with a 59% eFG and 60% TS, and the other being Kendrick Perkins (46% eFG, 48% TS).

The bottom line that has been mentioned a few times is that these stats like PPP, eFG and TS obviously still need to be put into context when actually gameplanning (is anyone saying otherwise?), but they're still proven to be far more effective in predicting team wins. And if you take 30 seconds to absorb why, this shouldn't be surprising. I don't see how anyone who has been introduced to eFG% would choose FG%, for example. It's beyond stubborn and not going to get you anywhere.

tredigs
09-18-2013, 02:38 PM
A) the phrase "for scoring alone" is kind of broad. scoring more points? creating shots on his own? whos shooting is conducive of a good offense? plus I asked who youd rather have on your team, not "if your looking for a specific skill, who would you rather have on your team?".

B) scoring isn't rondos value, I don't think anyone really focuses on his fg%. the thread was about volume scorers, so I assume scoring would be the players main contribution to the team.

C) Honestly, Rondo takes it to the rim and Billups takes more jumpers, its pretty clear to cant see how a team wouldn't benefit more having rajon rondo.

I said "for scoring alone" so you didn't take all the other intangibles that Billups brings over Rondo and factor that into the reason of why most would rather have him. You specifically said, "I would LOVE for you to find a 40% shooter who is more efficient than a 48% FG shooter". Did I not just show you as close to an example of that as there can be? And they shot on near identical volumes (10-12 attempts per game. #2/3 numbers). Despite the huge discrepancy in FG, Billups' eFG is still slightly higher, and his TS is far higher. He's objectively the more efficient scorer. Why are you guys being so stubborn about this?

Heatcheck
09-18-2013, 02:49 PM
I said "for scoring alone" so you didn't take all the other intangibles that Billups brings over Rondo and factor that into the reason of why most would rather have him. You specifically said, "I would LOVE for you to find a 40% shooter who is more efficient than a 48% FG shooter". Did I not just show you as close to an example of that as there can be? And they shot on near identical volumes (10-12 attempts per game. #2/3 numbers). Despite the huge discrepancy in FG, Billups' eFG is still slightly higher, and his TS is far higher. He's objectively the more efficient scorer. Why are you guys being so stubborn about this?

No ones being stubborn you just don't get it. The point of the back and forth was that I don't give advanced stats that much weight. his TS could be through the roof, he's still shooting 40% to Rondos 48% regardless of how much harder or valuable their shots are. Almost 50% of the shots Rondo decides to take, go in, 40% of Billups's go in. that's it.

And if you would've read the whole question I asked who youd rather have on your team, no one picks a PG for "scoring alone".

tredigs
09-18-2013, 02:54 PM
No ones being stubborn you just don't get it. The point of the back and forth was that I don't give advanced stats that much weight. his TS could be through the roof, he's still shooting 40% to Rondos 48% regardless of how much harder or valuable their shots are. Almost 50% of the shots Rondo decides to take, go in, 40% of Billups's go in. that's it.

And if you would've read the whole question I asked who youd rather have on your team, no one picks a PG for "scoring alone".

And if all shots were worth the same amount of points, this comment would be awesome.

Unfortunately, they're not, and that is why FG% is obviously hugely less effective in predicting team wins then something like PPP. Enjoy your cave, I'm moving on.

Heatcheck
09-18-2013, 03:06 PM
You missed more, but you COULDVE scored more if you made them, so yes your the better scoring option (not to mention pg).

Chronz
09-18-2013, 03:43 PM
I never said the long 2 wasn't the worst shot in the game, but going to the rim is the best shot in the game. im just saying the fact that its worth 3pts doesn't excuse you from shooting 30% for 3. your hurting more than your helping.
compared to a long range 2 it certainly does help your team. Thats the point, fg% wouldn't tell me the difference. Ts% tells me alot more and its why its the superior prognasticater for success.

DreamShaker
09-18-2013, 03:45 PM
What difference do either of these examples make? They are both good players.
So you basically did nothing but make the point I said above.

I didn't pay attention to the OP's "TFG%" remark because there is no such stat as far as I know.

And at the end of the day scoring efficiency based on TS% is still kind of useless because all of that changes in the clutch, and some guys have more intangibles. TS% also tells us nothing about how many baskets are assisted or how many turnovers. So it is a poor single stat judgement of scoring ability just as FG% is. Unfortunately there are a lot of stat junkies that will rely way heavily on TS% like it is a single stat barometer for efficiency.

I meant TS%. Blunder on my part!

Chronz
09-18-2013, 03:45 PM
Why wouldn't you put stock into the direction the league is clearly heading to? Heres the facts jack, fg% is 100% incapable of measuring any important measure of efficiency, you can be a 40% shooter and be more efficient than a 48% guy, its a shame you wouldn't be able to spot him.

i would LOVE for you to identify this 40% shooter who is more efficient than a 48%. and then tell me youd rather have the guy whos shooting 40% on your team.
I would love for you to do the inverse. Show me this high fg% guy that its more efficient than the high per possession guy.....lmfao

Chronz
09-18-2013, 03:48 PM
What difference do either of these examples make? They are both good players.
So you basically did nothing but make the point I said above.

I didn't pay attention to the OP's "TFG%" remark because there is no such stat as far as I know.

And at the end of the day scoring efficiency based on TS% is still kind of useless because all of that changes in the clutch, and some guys have more intangibles. TS% also tells us nothing about how many baskets are assisted or how many turnovers. So it is a poor single stat judgement of scoring ability just as FG% is. Unfortunately there are a lot of stat junkies that will rely way heavily on TS% like it is a single stat barometer for efficiency.

I meant TS%. Blunder on my part!
Not really, anyone worth their salt should understand what you were getting at

nycericanguy
09-18-2013, 03:56 PM
I will say there is something to be said for guys that just flat out hit shots, vs guys that rely on calls to be efficient.

A good example at SF would be Gallo vs Chandler Parsons. I don't think Gallo has ever shot higher than 42% in any season, but he's always efficient because he gets to the line a lot. (4.5 per game)

Whereas Parsons last year shot 49% and 39% from 3, numbers Gallo has never even sniffed, but Parsons only got to the FT 2x per game.

Who you would want would depend on the kind of team you have.

tredigs
09-18-2013, 04:18 PM
You missed more, but you COULDVE scored more if you made them, so yes your the better scoring option (not to mention pg).
I can't help myself.

So, let's get this straight. Over the course of the season you would want the guy who scores less points on the same amount of shots if he had a higher FG%, because he has a higher chance of making any particular FG (due to being closer to the rim and taking more 2's), and "he's the better scoring option"? I'll leave FT's out entirely in this theoretical.

Also, would you prefer Ray Allen shoot more 2's? I mean, higher chance of them going in amirite?


I will say there is something to be said for guys that just flat out hit shots, vs guys that rely on calls to be efficient.

A good example at SF would be Gallo vs Chandler Parsons. I don't think Gallo has ever shot higher than 42% in any season, but he's always efficient because he gets to the line a lot. (4.5 per game)

Whereas Parsons last year shot 49% and 39% from 3, numbers Gallo has never even sniffed, but Parsons only got to the FT 2x per game.

Who you would want would depend on the kind of team you have.
Problem with this scenario is that Parsons also had a higher eFG%, TS% and PPP. Although Gallo does maintain a pretty high efficiency not only due to his FT's, but because he's a volume 3pt shooter who shoots it well. 37% 3pt on 6 attempts per game is equal to around 55% from inside the arc (anybody who shoots =>33.3% from three is =>50% from 2).

Extrapolate that to a guy like Curry who shoots 45% from 3 on ~8 attempts a night, and you can see why the trend in the NBA is moving away from longer 2's and into volume 3pt shooting.

Heatcheck
09-18-2013, 04:29 PM
compared to a long range 2 it certainly does help your team. Thats the point, fg% wouldn't tell me the difference. Ts% tells me alot more and its why its the superior prognasticater for success.

Without going all Sheldon on me, and getting combative. Explain this to me. fg% doesn't tell you what?

Heatcheck
09-18-2013, 04:49 PM
I can't help myself.

A)So, let's get this straight. Over the course of the season you would want the guy who scores less points on the same amount of shots if he had a higher FG%, because he has a higher chance of making any particular FG (due to being closer to the rim and taking more 2's), and "he's the better scoring option"? I'll leave FT's out entirely in this theoretical.

B)Also, would you prefer Ray Allen shoot more 2's? I mean, higher chance of them going in amirite?



A) I don't know who your reffering to Billups? he didn't score more last year than Rondo, he did the 2 years before that. and the big difference was him going to the hole more and drawing fouls. Last year he didn't or couldn't take it to the hoop, probably because of age, took a lot of long jumpers and his numbers suffered. his percentage went down and his ppg went down. I don't see where billups is a better scorer last year at all. Rondo score 6 more ppg on 6 more shots. ill take that anyday. he cant shoot threes, therefore the impact he would normally have because of his ability to drive is reduced.

B) Ray Allen has the most consistent shot in NBA history. when your THAT good shooting, and your 37 years old, yes I prefer you taking jumpers over driving. and considering we just agreed that the long two is a lower percentage shot than the three, I cant see why id want him shooting 2.

Everything is in context, people get caught up in technicalities in order to disprove the other, they forget what we're talking about. i.e. we're talking about the what % is good for a volume scorer, and your example is a true PG who isnt known for his scoring, and a 36 year old pg.

Chronz
09-18-2013, 05:17 PM
Without going all Sheldon on me, and getting combative. Explain this to me. fg% doesn't tell you what?

The differentiating value of the made shot.

Heatcheck
09-18-2013, 05:57 PM
The differentiating value of the made shot.

so the possible outcome changes the way you perceive the actual outcome?

Rentzias
09-18-2013, 06:36 PM
so the possible outcome changes the way you perceive the actual outcome?
How efficiently did the player get to the the actual outcome.

rjkgr
09-18-2013, 07:09 PM
38-44% is to low for a volume scorer

Chronz
09-18-2013, 07:14 PM
The differentiating value of the made shot.

so the possible outcome changes the way you perceive the actual outcome?
Huh ? The actual outcome is that players make 3s

Hawkeye15
09-18-2013, 07:28 PM
If that's how you guys see it fine, but I don't see it that way.

A player could theoretically have a higher FG% @ equal attempts, higher 3PT% @ equal attempts, and higher FT% at lower attempts, and score more PPG, but have a lower TS% than another player due solely to the FTA disparity.

How TS% would tell you how the first vs second player would thrive in a shooting role is beyond me given the above scenario. The first player would hit all of his given shots at a higher percentage no matter where they came from, while the 2nd player would only be able to get to the FT line more often, which probably wouldn't happen as often in a shooting type role lowering his supposed efficiency advantage. You would end up signing the worst free agent of the 2 for that given role if you went by TS%.

It really is that basic. You want to score the most amount of points per shot or possession possible. That is why archaic FG% is useless in reality. It tells us nothing.

Hawkeye15
09-18-2013, 08:03 PM
No ones being stubborn you just don't get it. The point of the back and forth was that I don't give advanced stats that much weight. his TS could be through the roof, he's still shooting 40% to Rondos 48% regardless of how much harder or valuable their shots are. Almost 50% of the shots Rondo decides to take, go in, 40% of Billups's go in. that's it.

And if you would've read the whole question I asked who youd rather have on your team, no one picks a PG for "scoring alone".

absolutely not a measure, when you factor in Billups hits 3's, and scores oodles of points with no shot attempts.

Answer me this. Would you rather have a guy score 22 on 6-16 shooting, or 22 on 10-19 shooting?

carlthack
09-18-2013, 08:06 PM
For high-volume outside shooters it is at least 43-44%. For high volume shooting post-up players its 49% and up.

Pablonovi
09-18-2013, 11:46 PM
A general comment about how this thread is going:

We can't know for sure how much progress towards agreement can eventually be achieved; but one thing is for sure, calmly, patiently (trying to) explain things is the ONLY way which could possibly work.

I salute the majority here, who despite sharp disagreements and some real frustration, continue to commit the effort to try to clarify the differences.

beasted86
09-19-2013, 12:37 AM
It really is that basic. You want to score the most amount of points per shot or possession possible. That is why archaic FG% is useless in reality. It tells us nothing.

Actually it tells you everything and is the basis for TS% and every single scoring/shooting efficiency stat.
You have to start with the baseline of how many makes versus how many misses 100% of the time for all these statistics. So your comment just comes off as somebody stubborn attempting to make a point, just like what you call most people who don't rely heavy on advanced stats.

And at the end of the day, that is what seperates the great players, how many makes and how many misses among other things. Not how many points per possesion. I'd love to see an all-time greatest player discussion start on that topic. Please, do go start the thread on why Cedric Maxwell, Artis Gilmore, and Dave Twardzik are the greatest scorers in NBA history.

Chronz
09-19-2013, 12:25 PM
Actually it tells you everything and is the basis for TS% and every single scoring/shooting efficiency stat.
Wat?


And at the end of the day, that is what seperates the great players, how many makes and how many misses among other things. Not how many points per possesion. I'd love to see an all-time greatest player discussion start on that topic. Please, do go start the thread on why Cedric Maxwell, Artis Gilmore, and Dave Twardzik are the greatest scorers in NBA history.
There you go misusing statistics again..... they would be recognized as the most efficient scorers, not the greatest. The greatest scorer is a subjective term that needs to take usage into account as well as efficiency.


This would be like me pointing to the leaders in FG% (guys like Tyson Chandler and Mark West) and saying they were among the leagues great scorers, ignoring the chasm in usage%.


At the end of the day, the most efficient team wins the game. The best barometer for efficiency is PPP, the 2nd best would be TS%, somewhere at the end of the spectrums lays FG%, its easily the least valuable predictor of success.

So either learn how to properly assess stats OR, if you insists on misusing them, at least misuse all the stats consistently, meaning dont just misuse TS%, but fg% as well. Why dont you start a thread detailing the best free throw shooters using FG% as the barometer.

Chronz
09-19-2013, 12:26 PM
For high-volume outside shooters it is at least 43-44%. For high volume shooting post-up players its 49% and up.
Maybe if this were the 70's but we got this thing called a 3pt line now.

Pablonovi
09-19-2013, 02:07 PM
Rudy Gay and Michael Beasley scoff at you

Hey Hawk,
Can't argue with the Beastly.

IndyRealist
09-19-2013, 05:55 PM
How did this devolve into such a stupid argument?

FG% is a archaic measure that does not accurately reflect what's going on in the game. It became outdated in 1978 when they added the 3pt line. 35 years later, people still think it means something?

All else being equal, a guy who shoots 40% from 3 demolishes a guy who shoots 55% but only takes 2's, on the same number of FGs.

Pointing to a single isolated situation where you only need 2pts does not prove the 2pt shooter is better. If you need 3pts the 2pt shooter is useless. That's why you need both, for different situations.

IndyRealist
09-19-2013, 06:17 PM
I will say there is something to be said for guys that just flat out hit shots, vs guys that rely on calls to be efficient.

A good example at SF would be Gallo vs Chandler Parsons. I don't think Gallo has ever shot higher than 42% in any season, but he's always efficient because he gets to the line a lot. (4.5 per game)

Whereas Parsons last year shot 49% and 39% from 3, numbers Gallo has never even sniffed, but Parsons only got to the FT 2x per game.

Who you would want would depend on the kind of team you have.

I can agree to that, with the caveat that drawing fouls and getting to the line is also a valuable skill. Getting guys to consistently bite on a pump fake is an art form.

nycericanguy
09-19-2013, 06:40 PM
I can agree to that, with the caveat that drawing fouls and getting to the line is also a valuable skill. Getting guys to consistently bite on a pump fake is an art form.

Yea what I was getting at was, if you need a stretch 4 for instance, a guy that can just hit outside shots... you probably take the better shooter.

Now if you need a creator and a guy that can get to the line, you take the lower % guy that is more efficient overall.

carlthack
09-19-2013, 09:46 PM
Maybe if this were the 70's but we got this thing called a 3pt line now.

Yea no ******* smart *****. 3pt shots are included in the 43-44% obviously. What are you thinking is a good percentage 35% or something? Ease back on those chronz your smoking.

FlashBolt
09-19-2013, 09:51 PM
These stats are all irrelevant. From an eye test, you can see who's making an impact. That's all that matters. If you're not biased, you will know what their stats are throughout the game. Example, I watch Durant and James play. They are two of my top 5 players. I know at the end of the game, they will give 100% and make an impact in some sort of way. Without even knowing their stats, I can honestly say that it's more of an eye test.

Chronz
09-19-2013, 09:54 PM
Maybe if this were the 70's but we got this thing called a 3pt line now.

Yea no ******* smart *****. 3pt shots are included in the 43-44% obviously. What are you thinking is a good percentage 35% or something? Ease back on those chronz your smoking.
That literally makes no sense because the 3s arent included.

Chronz
09-19-2013, 09:55 PM
These stats are all irrelevant. From an eye test, you can see who's making an impact. That's all that matters. If you're not biased, you will know what their stats are throughout the game. Example, I watch Durant and James play. They are two of my top 5 players. I know at the end of the game, they will give 100% and make an impact in some sort of way. Without even knowing their stats, I can honestly say that it's more of an eye test.
What if someone disagrees with what you think you are watching?

FlashBolt
09-19-2013, 10:01 PM
What if someone disagrees with what you think you are watching?

I can't force them to agree. If they think otherwise, it's both an opinion. Even to this day, people are still arguing Kobe>LJ, but stats prove otherwise. Some just can't be convinced. I don't like to use stats because it usually turns out into a long equation of many factors. For example, TS% to me would represent the best pure scorer in the game. But to others, Kobe would be the best scorer based off his reputation. Everyone is entitled to their own definition of what's elite.

tredigs
09-19-2013, 10:16 PM
I can't force them to agree. If they think otherwise, it's both an opinion. Even to this day, people are still arguing Kobe>LJ, but stats prove otherwise. Some just can't be convinced. I don't like to use stats because it usually turns out into a long equation of many factors. For example, TS% to me would represent the best pure scorer in the game. But to others, Kobe would be the best scorer based off his reputation. Everyone is entitled to their own definition of what's elite.

TS% + Usage, maybe. I don't think anyone is arguing Tyson Chandler is the games best scorer.

Hawkeye15
09-19-2013, 10:31 PM
Actually it tells you everything and is the basis for TS% and every single scoring/shooting efficiency stat.
You have to start with the baseline of how many makes versus how many misses 100% of the time for all these statistics. So your comment just comes off as somebody stubborn attempting to make a point, just like what you call most people who don't rely heavy on advanced stats.

And at the end of the day, that is what seperates the great players, how many makes and how many misses among other things. Not how many points per possesion. I'd love to see an all-time greatest player discussion start on that topic. Please, do go start the thread on why Cedric Maxwell, Artis Gilmore, and Dave Twardzik are the greatest scorers in NBA history.

It's as if you are talking yourself into advanced stats while refusing to believe it. Do we need to put a players role into perspective? Um, of course. But you are dodging the fact that TS% takes a **** on FG% by trying to come up with outliers.

carlthack
09-19-2013, 10:32 PM
That literally makes no sense because the 3s arent included.

WTF are you talking about?? It is basic basketball knowledge that 3s are included in the general field goal percentage.

Read this, its in the third sentence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_goal_percentage

Hawkeye15
09-19-2013, 10:33 PM
These stats are all irrelevant. From an eye test, you can see who's making an impact. That's all that matters. If you're not biased, you will know what their stats are throughout the game. Example, I watch Durant and James play. They are two of my top 5 players. I know at the end of the game, they will give 100% and make an impact in some sort of way. Without even knowing their stats, I can honestly say that it's more of an eye test.

not over the course of 82 games for all 15 players on every team. Hence why they track efficiency.

Hawkeye15
09-19-2013, 10:34 PM
WTF are you talking about?? It is basic basketball knowledge that 3s are included in the general field goal percentage.

Read this, its in the second sentence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_goal_percentage

but the weight of 3's is different. That is the point. If you go 2-6 from bomb land, it's LITERALLY the same as going 3-6 from layup land. Hence why measures are equated.

carlthack
09-19-2013, 11:08 PM
but the weight of 3's is different. That is the point. If you go 2-6 from bomb land, it's LITERALLY the same as going 3-6 from layup land. Hence why measures are equated.

You are going way outside the box of what him and I were saying. Weights, measures and all that was never mentioned during the back-and-forth.

It was simple, he straight up told me that 3s are not included in general field goal percentage and I proved otherwise. End of story.

tredigs
09-19-2013, 11:19 PM
You are going way outside the box of what him and I were saying. Weights, measures and all that was never mentioned during the back-and-forth.

It was simple, he straight up told me that 3s are not included in general field goal percentage and I proved otherwise. End of story.

He's saying the value of the 3's aren't included bud. I.E. there is no difference between a 2 and a 3 for FG%. Rendering it mostly meaningless.

Hawkeye15
09-19-2013, 11:31 PM
You are going way outside the box of what him and I were saying. Weights, measures and all that was never mentioned during the back-and-forth.

It was simple, he straight up told me that 3s are not included in general field goal percentage and I proved otherwise. End of story.

3's are not weighted properly at all in basic FG% is the point.

carlthack
09-19-2013, 11:35 PM
He's saying the value of the 3's aren't included bud. I.E. there is no difference between a 2 and a 3 for FG%. Rendering it mostly meaningless.

What makes you so positive thats what he meant? If he was referring to such detail like that then he wouldnt have been speaking in such general terms.

tredigs
09-19-2013, 11:37 PM
What makes you so positive thats what he meant? If he was referring to such detail like that then he wouldnt have been speaking in such general terms.

There is a 0% chance that is not exactly what he meant.

carlthack
09-19-2013, 11:46 PM
There is a 0% chance that is not exactly what he meant.

That was 0% answer to my question.

tredigs
09-20-2013, 12:06 AM
That was 0% answer to my question.

Hah - your question needs no further answer. Chronz knows that 3's are included in FG% dude. It's pretty damn clear what he was saying.

carlthack
09-20-2013, 12:13 AM
Hah - your question needs no further answer. Chronz knows that 3's are included in FG% dude. It's pretty damn clear what he was saying.

1. Its obvious you have no clue how to answer my question.

2. Its also obvious you are on Chronz's balls like those girls in that pic of yours.

tredigs
09-20-2013, 12:24 AM
1. Its obvious you have no clue how to answer my question.

2. Its also obvious you are on Chronz's balls like those girls in that pic of yours.
Haha so angry, so dense. When he commented that it "made no sense because 3's aren't included", he's talking about the value of the 3............................. you know, like in TS% or eFG%?

I don't know how many ways there is to say that or in what manner you need this spoon fed to you, but I'm going to let you fester in silence for now.

carlthack
09-20-2013, 12:42 AM
Haha so angry, so dense. When he commented that it "made no sense because 3's aren't included", he's talking about the value of the 3............................. you know, like in TS% or eFG%?

I don't know how many ways there is to say that or in what manner you need this spoon fed to you, but I'm going to let you fester in silence for now.

So I have to repeat myself again? The subject was simply general field goal percentage. His comment, as you said, was that 3s arent included in that.

How you can take that generality and conjure it up into him breaking it down into all of these weights and splits and measures makes no sense what so ever. You already got owned like several postings ago. Just let it go, people are tired of reading this argument now.

tredigs
09-20-2013, 01:09 AM
So I have to repeat myself again? The subject was simply general field goal percentage. His comment, as you said, was that 3s arent included in that.

How you can take that generality and conjure it up into him breaking it down into all of these weights and splits and measures makes no sense what so ever. You already got owned like several postings ago. Just let it go, people are tired of reading this argument now.
"Owned", awesome. AOL chat rooms were the best amirite!

Listed, you're apparently too vacuous to connect the dots that people make for you, and that's fine. But, at least know when to cut your losses after somebody does you the favor of connecting them for you? Not everything that is completely obvious will be explicitly written for you junior, some things are implied. I'd recommend you stop attacking, and stop digging yourself deeper in this hole of embarrassment you've created. But, by all means --

carlthack
09-20-2013, 01:19 AM
"Owned", awesome. AOL chat rooms were the best amirite!

Listed, you're apparently too vacuous to connect the dots that people make for you, and that's fine. But, at least know when to cut your losses after somebody does you the favor of connecting them for you? Not everything that is completely obvious will be explicitly written for you junior, some things are implied. I'd recommend you stop attacking, and stop digging yourself deeper in this hole of embarrassment you've created. But, by all means --

You're still chirping?

Get over yourself bro, honestly it was a stupid argument in the first place. But Im sure you're jerking off in the corner over it anyway like you think you "won" something.

Chronz
09-20-2013, 03:31 AM
That literally makes no sense because the 3s arent included.

WTF are you talking about?? It is basic basketball knowledge that 3s are included in the general field goal percentage.

Read this, its in the third sentence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_goal_percentage
No they aren't because it does nothing to account for the value of the made 3. Literally nothing you said was true, read your own link.

Chronz
09-20-2013, 03:34 AM
He's saying the value of the 3's aren't included bud. I.E. there is no difference between a 2 and a 3 for FG%. Rendering it mostly meaningless.

What makes you so positive thats what he meant? If he was referring to such detail like that then he wouldnt have been speaking in such general terms.
Heres the thing, your the one not up to speed on what constitutes statistical generalities. Its obvious to anyone with any semblance of statistical comprehension what I meant. Im sorry if I didnt dumb it down enough for you, didnt think this **** was rocket science.

Chronz
09-20-2013, 03:36 AM
but the weight of 3's is different. That is the point. If you go 2-6 from bomb land, it's LITERALLY the same as going 3-6 from layup land. Hence why measures are equated.

You are going way outside the box of what him and I were saying. Weights, measures and all that was never mentioned during the back-and-forth.

It was simple, he straight up told me that 3s are not included in general field goal percentage and I proved otherwise. End of story.
Its not outside the box tho, not unless you've been living under a rock the past decade +.

Heatcheck
09-20-2013, 11:05 AM
this is the type of convo I have to have in person with someone, I have some qualms with the overall point and some of the examples, but im afraid I don't have the patience for it on a forum. so I bow out of this one. still, a very good thread.

carlthack
09-20-2013, 04:11 PM
No they aren't because it does nothing to account for the value of the made 3. Literally nothing you said was true, read your own link.

Really? Nothing I said is true?

Maybe if I was talking about eFG% you are right but I never was. I was just talking about regular old FG%, thats it. And with regular field goal percentage, 3s are in fact included. Why you ever thought I was referring to eFG% is beyond me. I thought I was making myself clear.

SMH!
09-20-2013, 04:28 PM
Like any stat though, you have to adjust accordingly when they're the #1 and drawing the opposing teams top defender or not. Which at the 25+ PPG range they probably are. But for eFG if I had to give a %range I'd go 49-52 = solid. 52-55 = very good. 55+ elite.

bangbang

Chronz
09-20-2013, 04:32 PM
Really? Nothing I said is true?

Maybe if I was talking about eFG% you are right but I never was.
You got it *** backwards. If you were bringing up eFG% THEN you would be talking about a barometer that includes the difference the 3pt line has had on league wide efficiency.


I was just talking about regular old FG%, thats it.
Yes, and regular old FG% neglects the importance of the 3pt line, hence my initial post questioning your logic. You chose to mock me without completely understanding what it was I was saying.


And with regular field goal percentage, 3s are in fact included.
Im sorry but they are not because they DO NOT differentiate the difference between a 3 and a 2, they are ALL FG/A.

And example of a stat that DOES account for 3's would be one that actually differentiates between the 2 fg/a. LMFAO this is basic **** in the NBA man.


Why you ever thought I was referring to eFG% is beyond me. I thought I was making myself clear.
You were crystal clear in your ignorance. If you had been referring to the measure that accounted for the 3, I would have never made my first comment (where I bring up the 3pt line).

Your confusion stems from your utter inability to keep up with the way front offices in the league you watch are defining the terminology.

Heres a hint for future reference, when someone brings up the impact the 3PT LINE has had, they are expecting you to understand that a made 3 is actually worth an extra point than a made 2. Knowing this FACT, you should then apply a barometer that can at least account for the value of the possession, FG% does not accomplish this, again, because it neglects the value of the 3.

carlthack
09-20-2013, 04:45 PM
Heres a hint for future reference, when someone brings up the impact the 3PT LINE has had, they are expecting you to understand that a made 3 is actually worth an extra point than a made 2. Knowing this FACT, you should then apply a barometer that can at least account for the value of the possession, FG% does not accomplish this, again, because it neglects the value of the 3.

There is no reason to get angry over what was just a misunderstanding. I was never referring to the values of 2s and 3s, and I think you know that now. We can at least agree that there is a huge difference between FG% and eFG% right? Then what is so hard about typing a freaking "e" on your keyboard for crying out loud?

We know it was a misunderstanding so lets just brush it under the rug and move on.

Pablonovi
09-20-2013, 09:47 PM
[SNIP]

We know it was a misunderstanding so lets just brush it under the rug and move on.

Hey all,
I vote "YES" in regards to this last sentence.

Perhaps somebody didn't state something exactly enough for someone else's tastes; and perhaps the other someone was even a little sloppier with their thinking. In any event, let's move on, shall we?

Pablonovi
09-20-2013, 09:49 PM
this is the type of convo I have to have in person with someone, I have some qualms with the overall point and some of the examples, but im afraid I don't have the patience for it on a forum. so I bow out of this one. still, a very good thread.

Hey Heatcheck,
There's a lot to be said for those who can recognize when they can and when they can't make real contributions.
Well said.

b@llhog24
09-21-2013, 08:36 PM
[SNIP]

We know it was a misunderstanding so lets just brush it under the rug and move on.

Hey all,
I vote "YES" in regards to this last sentence.

Perhaps somebody didn't state something exactly enough for someone else's tastes; and perhaps the other someone was even a little sloppier with their thinking. In any event, let's move on, shall we?

Even if it was a misunderstanding. He's the one who was doing all the instigation.

b@llhog24
09-21-2013, 08:38 PM
Gotta say this thread is filled with ignorance.

Pablonovi
09-21-2013, 09:51 PM
Gotta say this thread is filled with ignorance.

Hey b@llhog24,
I thought it was pretty useful early-on (even amidst the on-going stats "wars"); though it did SEEM! to go from advanced to ********.

A little earlier, in direct response to one of my (pathetic attempts at) peace-keeping posts, you said: "Even if it was a misunderstanding. He's the one who was doing all the instigation. "

Well, I WAS trying to: right a badly listing/sinking ship; especially by NOT apportioning blame (though I did try "subtly" to hint at things); and, especially, tried to avoid further prolonging the on-going "flame-war". Otherwise, I might have said what you just did - emphasis on "might have said" - in hopes now that things will NOT start back up again.

Perhaps, this thread has run its course?

SPURSFAN1
09-21-2013, 10:28 PM
Anyone who just uses regular FG% is a ******. People on tv talk about fg%,because it's easier to say it in simple terms or risk confusing millions of people. I expect people in a basketball forum to be more informed than the regular joe. I also expect them to understand how shooting 3 pointers affects their shooting efficiency.

5ass
09-21-2013, 11:02 PM
In one way or another we arw all ignorant.

DenButsu
09-22-2013, 12:01 PM
All I know is that if the Nuggets are down by 2 with 3 seconds remaining in the game, I want JaVale McGee taking that 3-point buzzer beater for the win. After all, of all the players on the current roster he had the highest FG% last season.

tredigs
09-22-2013, 12:07 PM
All I know is that if the Nuggets are down by 2 with 3 seconds remaining in the game, I want JaVale McGee taking that 3-point buzzer beater for the win. After all, of all the players on the current roster he had the highest FG% last season.

hah - the thing about that exact situation (which I know you're just making fun of it from earlier) is that none of FG, eFG, PPP, TS, whatever make any difference. It's just your straight 3pt shooting (and ability to free yourself up), it's not as if there's ever a question who the players are you want taking that shot.

DenButsu
09-22-2013, 12:56 PM
The whole thing about clinging to FG% is something I just don't understand at all. It's like trying to convince everyone in 2013 that VHS cassettes are actually higher quality than blu-ray. It's just demonstrably false.

Take five players, all of whom score 14 points on a .500 FG%. Which shooting stat embodies the most complete set of information which encompasses all types of scoring (2pt, 3pt, FT) and their differential values?

It couldn't possibly be more clear:



http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj258/denbutsu/FGvsEFGvsTS_zpsd447e9d4.jpg


Anyone who would look at this and still try to argue that FG% is just as valuable as TS% when it comes to being a good measurement of shooting efficiency is either being willfully ignorant, just being contrarian for the hell of it, or simply doesn't get it.

But facts are facts. This really isn't a matter of opinion. FG%, in fact, makes no account of the value of 3pt shots, and no account of FT shooting at all. TS% takes account of both. There's room for debate about how to interpret and use TS% (et al), but there's just no question about what it entails: a better, more complete set of information about a player's shooting than FG%.

D-Leethal
09-22-2013, 01:01 PM
The whole thing about clinging to FG% is something I just don't understand at all. It's like trying to convince everyone in 2013 that VHS cassettes are actually higher quality than blu-ray. It's just demonstrably false.

Take five players, all of whom score 14 points on a .500 FG%. Which shooting stat embodies the most complete set of information which encompasses all types of scoring (2pt, 3pt, FT) and their differential values?

It couldn't possibly be more clear:



http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj258/denbutsu/FGvsEFGvsTS_zpsd447e9d4.jpg


Anyone who would look at this and still try to argue that FG% is just as valuable as TS% when it comes to being a good measurement of shooting efficiency is either being willfully ignorant, just being contrarian for the hell of it, or simply doesn't get it.

But facts are facts. This really isn't a matter of opinion. FG%, in fact, makes no account of the value of 3pt shots, and no account of FT shooting at all. TS% takes account of both. There's room for debate about how to interpret and use TS% (et al), but there's just no question about what it entails: a better, more complete set of information about a player's shooting than FG%.

FG% isn't shooting efficiency. Its scoring efficiency. You obviously have to take into account the player you are judging and the typical FGA they take.

DenButsu
09-22-2013, 01:05 PM
FG% isn't shooting efficiency. Its scoring efficiency.

Could you please clearly (and precisely) define for me the difference between "shooting efficiency" and "scoring efficiency"? Because I honestly have no idea what you mean by that. Because - and I don't mean to be a smart-*** by saying this - since all scoring comes as a result of shooting, I can't see how that's not a distinction without a difference.

D-Leethal
09-22-2013, 01:12 PM
Could you please clearly (and precisely) define for me the difference between "shooting efficiency" and "scoring efficiency"? Because I honestly have no idea what you mean by that. Because - and I don't mean to be a smart-*** by saying this - since all scoring comes as a result of shooting, I can't see how that's not a distinction without a difference.

I mean your FG% isn't an indication of what type of shooter you are. Its an indication of how well you can put the ball in the hoop. Your not taking jump shots in the key or around the hoop, and if thats where you typically score the ball from, it doesn't mean your a good shooter.

b@llhog24
09-22-2013, 01:26 PM
I mean your FG% isn't an indication of what type of shooter you are. Its an indication of how well you can put the ball in the hoop. Your not taking jump shots in the key or around the hoop, and if thats where you typically score the ball from, it doesn't mean your a good shooter.

That's essentially what TS is, just with weights.

D-Leethal
09-22-2013, 01:44 PM
That's essentially what TS is, just with weights.

I understand the use of TS%. I don't think TS% makes FG%, 3PT%, FT% irrelevant, outdated or not of use anymore. I think I would like TS% better if FTs weren't part of the picture. To me, if I want to know how well a guy scores the ball between the lines, I don't really want frequency of getting to the FT line as a part of it. I want to know how well they score field goals, and I do think weighing the 3PT aspect is a good thing. I would prefer to isolate FT shooting as its own metric than throw it in the pool and muddy the waters.

tredigs
09-22-2013, 02:01 PM
I understand the use of TS%. I don't think TS% makes FG%, 3PT%, FT% irrelevant, outdated or not of use anymore. I think I would like TS% better if FTs weren't part of the picture. To me, if I want to know how well a guy scores the ball between the lines, I don't really want frequency of getting to the FT line as a part of it. I want to know how well they score field goals, and I do think weighing the 3PT aspect is a good thing. I would prefer to isolate FT shooting as its own metric than throw it in the pool and muddy the waters.

eFG? FG% is in fact useless relative to what there is available. FT and 3pt definitely are not.

D-Leethal
09-22-2013, 02:12 PM
eFG? FG% is in fact useless relative to what there is available. FT and 3pt definitely are not.

I will concede here and agree.

b@llhog24
09-22-2013, 03:04 PM
I will concede here and agree.

Good enough for me.

aman_13
09-23-2013, 12:36 AM
Yeah I read a lot of posts about the dislike of FTs being added to the equation but that is why statisticians also use eFG%.

Pablonovi
09-23-2013, 04:18 PM
The whole thing about clinging to FG% is something I just don't understand at all. It's like trying to convince everyone in 2013 that VHS cassettes are actually higher quality than blu-ray. It's just demonstrably false.

Take five players, all of whom score 14 points on a .500 FG%. Which shooting stat embodies the most complete set of information which encompasses all types of scoring (2pt, 3pt, FT) and their differential values?

It couldn't possibly be more clear:



http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj258/denbutsu/FGvsEFGvsTS_zpsd447e9d4.jpg


Anyone who would look at this and still try to argue that FG% is just as valuable as TS% when it comes to being a good measurement of shooting efficiency is either being willfully ignorant, just being contrarian for the hell of it, or simply doesn't get it.

But facts are facts. This really isn't a matter of opinion. FG%, in fact, makes no account of the value of 3pt shots, and no account of FT shooting at all. TS% takes account of both. There's room for debate about how to interpret and use TS% (et al), but there's just no question about what it entails: a better, more complete set of information about a player's shooting than FG%.

Hey DenButsu,
My sense of FG% is that it is a kind of fudge factor measuring stick; but that it doesn't fudge very well, and doesn't include enough factors; so FAIL.

More seriously, you include eFG%, it clearly differs significantly from both other "measuring-sticks"; but you don't address it: it's strengths and weaknesses vis--vis the other two. Especially vs TS%.

Would you, please.

I ask both because I'm pretty new to advanced stats and (though I believe I'm usually a very quick learner) I think I'm picking them up much too slowly. Perhaps all I need is lots of repetition with some variety / different angles thrown in?

tredigs
09-23-2013, 05:49 PM
^Pablo, eFG% is simply FG% that takes into account whether or not the shot you made was a 2 or a 3. In a formula, it would be (3's made*0.5 + FG's made) / FG Attempts. The extra "0.5 times 3's made" is what allows the stat to take into account whether or not the shooter made a 2 or 3, and it gives you your "effective Field Goal %" as a result. In TS% (True Shooting %), it does the same thing that eFG will do in weighting the value of a 2 or a 3 appropriately, but also factors in both how often and how well you shoot your free throws. Being that free throws are such a high percentage shot, a guy who shoots even 75% from the line is averaging 1.5 points per possession, which is far better then shooting 50% if you only took 2pt field goals (1 point per possession average), or 33% from 3pt (also 1 point per possession average. Ex: if a 33% 3pt shooter takes 9 threes, he will make 3 of them on average. Which is 9 points. Or, '1 point per possession'). You would have to be a 50% 3pt scorer or 75% 2pt scorer to equal the efficiency of the 75% foul shot. Being that this is the case, players who get to the line a good deal (and are not named Dwight Howard) will generally have a far higher TS% then their eFG%. Durant and Harden are two clear examples as they both get to the line a ton and shoot them at a very high percentage.

Hope that made some sense? Haha. Here's a good article that breaks down some of the standard advanced stats being thrown around today if you feel like checking it out some more: http://www.goldenstateofmind.com/2011/12/6/2602153/advanced-stats-primer

SPURSFAN1
09-23-2013, 05:50 PM
Hey DenButsu,
My sense of FG% is that it is a kind of fudge factor measuring stick; but that it doesn't fudge very well, and doesn't include enough factors; so FAIL.

More seriously, you include eFG%, it clearly differs significantly from both other "measuring-sticks"; but you don't address it: it's strengths and weaknesses vis--vis the other two. Especially vs TS%.

Would you, please.

I ask both because I'm pretty new to advanced stats and (though I believe I'm usually a very quick learner) I think I'm picking them up much too slowly. Perhaps all I need is lots of repetition with some variety / different angles thrown in?

I don't know if you understand what he is trying to say. He is pointing out that fg% can be misleading.
Here are some links for you're understanding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_shooting_percentage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APBRmetrics
true shooting percentage is how efficient you are with possessions. Take for instance when someone is going for an easy layup and gets fouled hard and misses the shot. Lets pretend he gets fouled like this 5 more times. Makeable shots but was fouled and couldn't convert. He makes 11/12 free throws. Now lets pretend his fg% is 30% with 3/10 on twos. The average person might assume he is having an off night but in reality he has a TS% of .556. In reality he isn't hurting the team because he is still making the right basketball plays.
I would probably change one little minor detail in the equation but the answer is still good. The equation takes into account 3's 2's and free throws.
and for eFG% it takes FG% but weights a three pointer as 150% of a of a two pointer. This doesn't take into account free throws. They both have their good qualities and i prefer TS% because drawing the foul comes from experience and should help your efficiency.
I also like 3point percentage. And people should stop with the "o he has a higher fg% or TS% and now they should shoot the 3". that makes no sense. FG% or TS% just shows how good you can put the ball in the hoop doing what you do best, and not that you can shoot from anywhere on the floor.

bagwell368
09-23-2013, 09:54 PM
I don't know if you understand what he is trying to say. He is pointing out that fg% can be misleading.
Here are some links for you're understanding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_shooting_percentage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APBRmetrics
true shooting percentage is how efficient you are with possessions. Take for instance when someone is going for an easy layup and gets fouled hard and misses the shot. Lets pretend he gets fouled like this 5 more times. Makeable shots but was fouled and couldn't convert. He makes 11/12 free throws. Now lets pretend his fg% is 30% with 3/10 on twos. The average person might assume he is having an off night but in reality he has a TS% of .556. In reality he isn't hurting the team because he is still making the right basketball plays.
I would probably change one little minor detail in the equation but the answer is still good. The equation takes into account 3's 2's and free throws.
and for eFG% it takes FG% but weights a three pointer as 150% of a of a two pointer. This doesn't take into account free throws. They both have their good qualities and i prefer TS% because drawing the foul comes from experience and should help your efficiency.
I also like 3point percentage. And people should stop with the "o he has a higher fg% or TS% and now they should shoot the 3". that makes no sense. FG% or TS% just shows how good you can put the ball in the hoop doing what you do best, and not that you can shoot from anywhere on the floor.

Who hijacked your account?

SPURSFAN1
09-23-2013, 10:24 PM
Who hijacked your account?

I'll take that as a compliment.

DenButsu
09-24-2013, 10:21 PM
Yeah, Pablo, SF1 pretty much covered it. But just to expand on that a little, there could be times when you'd prefer to use eFG% rather than TS% precisely because you don't want to take free throw shooting into account. (This gets into what I suppose the poster above who I asked to define the difference between shooting and scoring was getting at). So say if you want to just zoom in on field goal shooting (incl. 3pt but no FTs) to compare the "pure" shooting ability of two players (ie. Steph Curry and Ray Allen), eFG% may be a preferable metric because "Who is the more overall efficient player?" is not really the question you're asking. So as you might surmise, eFG% tends to be more useful when applied to guards and wings since not so many bigs attempt many 3s.

TS%, on the other hand, can be very useful in (for lack of a better term) handicapping bigs who are poor FT shooters. So for example, Dwight's FG% was .578 last season while Bosh's was .535. But we can say that Bosh was the more efficient player offensively because his TS% was .592 to Dwight's .573. And that difference is primarily due to the fact that Bosh can shoot FTs (.798) while Dwight can't (.492). Bosh also attempted about one 3 per game, but off the top of my head I'd guess that his % (.284), since it's under .333, probably harms rather than boosts his TS%.