Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 52
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    17,258
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    Well, it tells you how many times the ball goes through the hoop out of 100 shots during regular play by that player.
    Doesn't really show the legitimate efficient output of a player in today's game, though. It's still being used but I'd agree that eFG% is a better measure. It's just that it also penalizes players from back then for comparison purposes as the 3P% was rarely used but as we've seen, it's probably the best weapon in the game.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    22,574
    Quote Originally Posted by FlashBolt View Post
    Doesn't really show the legitimate efficient output of a player in today's game, though. It's still being used but I'd agree that eFG% is a better measure. It's just that it also penalizes players from back then for comparison purposes as the 3P% was rarely used but as we've seen, it's probably the best weapon in the game.
    I wasn't arguing FG% was superior just that it's not useless. It, like most stats, is limited.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    27,083
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots:32027910
    Quote Originally Posted by KnicksorBust View Post
    Based on what?
    Based on TS% using a constant of .44 as the value of a free throw attempt. It's an estimated value applied to all players equally for FTs attempted on regular fouls and and 1 attempts. By playing with hypothetical numbers you can get some strange results. It's fine, it's just not the be all and end all of shooting stats. Daryl Morey supposedly created TS% and even he said it's got issues.
    You are still being vague. Why is .44 wrong? What strange results?


    Kristaps Porzingis
    Stronger than most 15 year old girls.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    22,574
    Quote Originally Posted by KnicksorBust View Post
    You are still being vague. Why is .44 wrong? What strange results?
    The .44 is an average of regular free throws on fouls, 3 free throws, flagrants, technicals, and and-1s. Some players are better than average and some are worse and it slants the results. It's a fine stat, it's just not perfect ... but there is no perfect.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    27,083
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    The .44 is an average of regular free throws on fouls, 3 free throws, flagrants, technicals, and and-1s. Some players are better than average and some are worse and it slants the results. It's a fine stat, it's just not perfect ... but there is no perfect.
    So... better than average free throw shooters improve their true shooting percentage and below average free throw shooters don't. Again that sounds like a good thing. If you don't have an actual valid response you can just say "I don't like it" and we can move on but you aren't showing any reason why .44 is wrong or citing specific examples. I think TS% is the best offensive scoring efficiency stat. Not trolling here I legitimately thought you had something to add to the discussion.


    Kristaps Porzingis
    Stronger than most 15 year old girls.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    22,574
    Quote Originally Posted by KnicksorBust View Post
    So... better than average free throw shooters improve their true shooting percentage and below average free throw shooters don't. Again that sounds like a good thing. If you don't have an actual valid response you can just say "I don't like it" and we can move on but you aren't showing any reason why .44 is wrong or citing specific examples. I think TS% is the best offensive scoring efficiency stat. Not trolling here I legitimately thought you had something to add to the discussion.
    Jeez ... glad you are not trolling

    TS% bugs me because a part of it is an estimate. We have the details available to not use .44 but use the actual number of and-1s and technicals and flagrants each player attempts. Why not use the real numbers when we have them?

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    43,322
    Scoots doesn't know ts%, it was around long before Morey and we can easily account for actual possessions. .44 was an estimate but it remains a reliable one even when looking at the actual ranks

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    43,322
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    Jeez ... glad you are not trolling

    TS% bugs me because a part of it is an estimate. We have the details available to not use .44 but use the actual number of and-1s and technicals and flagrants each player attempts. Why not use the real numbers when we have them?
    Because its negligible for the most part and it's still better than ignoring the value of free throws altogether

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    22,574
    Quote Originally Posted by Chronz View Post
    Scoots doesn't know ts%, it was around long before Morey and we can easily account for actual possessions. .44 was an estimate but it remains a reliable one even when looking at the actual ranks
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daryl_Morey

    I heard him talk about it (via audio only) from a Sloan conference. So either he's lying or you are wrong.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    22,574
    Quote Originally Posted by Chronz View Post
    Because its negligible for the most part and it's still better than ignoring the value of free throws altogether
    That's true ... but why not get it right?

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    24,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    That's true ... but why not get it right?
    I'd imagine because it would take far more manpower and time to calculate the TS% based on the individual player's specific stats. That would be my guess at least.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    22,574
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    I'd imagine because it would take far more manpower and time to calculate the TS% based on the individual player's specific stats. That would be my guess at least.
    When TS% was created all the other numbers were not readily available, but they are now. And computers don't use manpower

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    7,548
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    When TS% was created all the other numbers were not readily available, but they are now. And computers don't use manpower
    It does take manpower initially. Someone has to code it. And there doesn't seem to be much enthusiasm to correct it. If I had to guess, that's because A) it's accurate enough for everyone but extreme outliers, and B) everyone with access to the databases are already vested in other proprietary metrics.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    22,574
    Quote Originally Posted by IndyRealist View Post
    It does take manpower initially. Someone has to code it. And there doesn't seem to be much enthusiasm to correct it. If I had to guess, that's because A) it's accurate enough for everyone but extreme outliers, and B) everyone with access to the databases are already vested in other proprietary metrics.
    I agree, heck ESPN considers anything but the original 5 counting stats as "advanced"

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    17,258
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    I agree, heck ESPN considers anything but the original 5 counting stats as "advanced"
    ESPN is for casuals, though. But I've been hearing more and more commentators/analysts bring up advanced stats now. I guess they are seeing the trend and try to sound more informed but I can bet some of them have no idea what it is other than what they are being told to say.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •