Wingstop are top 5 among active players in postseason TS%

[Kawhitstorm]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ts_pct_active_p.html



Rank
Player
TS%


1.
Kawhi Leonard (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/l/leonaka01.html)
.6023


2.
Dwight Howard (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/h/howardw01.html)
.5965


3.
Stephen Curry (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/c/curryst01.html)
.5950


4.
Danny Green (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/g/greenda02.html)
.5948


5.
James Harden (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/h/hardeja01.html)
.5914



6.
Chris Paul (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/paulch01.html)
.5837



7.
Manu Ginobili (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/g/ginobma01.html)
.5805





54.
Tony Parker (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/parketo01.html)
.5140


:lmao

[Spurtacular]

Westbrook is 50. Just sayin'.

[Diego20]

:cry but but TP has one FMVP :cry

[daslicer]

Another Parker bashing thread created by a troll. Dwight being number 2 shows you how credible this advance stat is.

[DAF86]

:cry but...but... FG% :cry

SASdynasty! mode//

[dabom]

I wonder where fathead is rated...

[daslicer]

Amazing how many lemmings are in this thread. TS% is garbage it doesn't factor in FG and FT misses but only attempts. Also there have been cases where a player has shot over 100 percent under TS% but in reality didn't hit 100 percent of his FG attempts. Here's an article that proves my point https://escobarmag.wordpress.com/2013/03/05/why-true-shooting-percentage-and-effective-field-goal-percentage-are-wrong-and-why-our-metric-is-right/. If you look at that list George Hill is ranked higher than Lebron James which goes to show you the absurdity of TS%.

[Sean Cagney]

Amazing how many lemmings are in this thread. TS% is garbage it doesn't factor in FG and FT misses but only attempts. Also there have been cases where a player has shot over 100 percent under TS% but in reality didn't hit 100 percent of his FG attempts. Here's an article that proves my point https://escobarmag.wordpress.com/2013/03/05/why-true-shooting-percentage-and-effective-field-goal-percentage-are-wrong-and-why-our-metric-is-right/. If you look at that list George Hill is ranked higher than Lebron James which goes to show you the absurdity of TS%.Another bullshit meaningless stat to prove how good a player is or is not. What happened to the old FG% and PPG along with other stats to prove your worth? That or who shows up in a game 6 or 7 to win? Those are stats I care about.

[dabom]

Amazing how many lemmings are in this thread. TS% is garbage it doesn't factor in FG and FT misses but only attempts. Also there have been cases where a player has shot over 100 percent under TS% but in reality didn't hit 100 percent of his FG attempts. Here's an article that proves my point https://escobarmag.wordpress.com/2013/03/05/why-true-shooting-percentage-and-effective-field-goal-percentage-are-wrong-and-why-our-metric-is-right/. If you look at that list George Hill is ranked higher than Lebron James which goes to show you the absurdity of TS%.
Are you a dumbass? You do understand that a made 3 point shot is worth 50% more than a made 2 point shot right? Thats why you can have a TS% above 100 on any giving night you stupid fuck. :lmao

[daslicer]

Are you a dumbass? You do understand that a made 3 point shot is worth 50% more than a made 2 point shot right? Thats why you can have a TS% above 100 on any giving night you stupid fuck. :lmao

Proving my point you are a lemming.

[lilbthebasedgod]

Noone cares about TS%

[cjw]

eFG% is better than TS%, which is loads better than FG%. Situational FG% is fine - based on type of game event, but it's a limited stat like batting average in baseball (where OBP and later OPS and now more advanced stats I don't even understand are king )

[Chinook]

People are being ridiculous. TS% isn't an advanced stat. It's not trying to determine overall impact. It simply points out how many points a player scores per attempt. That has usefulness in context, just like all other stats.

[Kawhitstorm]

People are being ridiculous. TS% isn't an advanced stat. It's not trying to determine overall impact. It simply points out how many points a player scores per attempt. That has usefulness in context, just like all other stats.

Their hate of Kawhi turns them into Trump supporters who just ignore facts & replace them with false narratives.:lol

[Kawhitstorm]

Another Parker bashing thread created by a troll. Dwight being number 2 shows you how credible this advance stat is.

71yVR0PyctM

fGjdKQPz9uo

[Raven]

Amazing how many lemmings are in this thread. TS% is garbage it doesn't factor in FG and FT misses but only attempts. Also there have been cases where a player has shot over 100 percent under TS% but in reality didn't hit 100 percent of his FG attempts. Here's an article that proves my point https://escobarmag.wordpress.com/2013/03/05/why-true-shooting-percentage-and-effective-field-goal-percentage-are-wrong-and-why-our-metric-is-right/. If you look at that list George Hill is ranked higher than Lebron James which goes to show you the absurdity of TS%.


:lmao
:lmao
:lmao

[Chinook]

By the way, that article is ridiculously wrong in its interpretation of both stats. I feel that was done intentionally to try to sell their own stat, but they aren't breaking shit.

[kobyz]

Still led us to pathetic seasons last two years with two first round exits...

[SpursFan86]

I legitimately can't see any argument for why you should use FG% rather than TS% or eFG%.

Why would you not adjust for 3-pointers being worth an extra point? Curry shooting 50% isn't comparable to someone like Dwight Howard shooting 50%. One guy has over half of his attempts come from deep, while the other doesn't shoot 3s at all.

Player A and Player B both take 100 shots. Player A only shoots 3s, Player B only shoots 2s. If Player A shoots 43% on those shots, he's scoring 129 points. It would take Player B shooting over 64% to score that many points. This isn't some crazy advanced metric - it's common sense. 3 > 2.

As for FTs - they're a part of basketball. You can bitch about guys like Harden all you want, but the point remains: being able to consistently get to the FT line and shoot FTs at a high rate is a tremendous skill to have. If you're trying to judge a player's total scoring efficiency (which is pretty much the point of TS%), I don't know why you'd want to exclude FTs. Player A and Player B are identical, but Player A takes 10 FTA per game and shoots 90% on them, while Player B takes 5 FTA per game and shoots 70% on them. Which player would you take?

I mean if you want to argue that TS% or eFG% aren't perfect, then that's one thing...but to advocate the use of FG% instead of those 2? Sorry, but you're clueless.

[sasaint]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ts_pct_active_p.html



Rank
Player
TS%


1.
Kawhi Leonard (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/l/leonaka01.html)
.6023


2.
Dwight Howard (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/h/howardw01.html)
.5965


3.
Stephen Curry (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/c/curryst01.html)
.5950


4.
Danny Green (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/g/greenda02.html)
.5948


5.
James Harden (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/h/hardeja01.html)
.5914



6.
Chris Paul (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/paulch01.html)
.5837



7.
Manu Ginobili (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/g/ginobma01.html)
.5805





54.
Tony Parker (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/parketo01.html)
.5140


:lmao

If Kawhi ever starts getting calls... Look Out, NBA! :wow

[Diego20]

Still led us to pathetic seasons last two years with two first round exits...

What's your team bro? Last season wasn't first round exit.

:lol

[daslicer]

I legitimately can't see any argument for why you should use FG% rather than TS% or eFG%.

Why would you not adjust for 3-pointers being worth an extra point? Curry shooting 50% isn't comparable to someone like Dwight Howard shooting 50%. One guy has over half of his attempts come from deep, while the other doesn't shoot 3s at all.

Player A and Player B both take 100 shots. Player A only shoots 3s, Player B only shoots 2s. If Player A shoots 43% on those shots, he's scoring 129 points. It would take Player B shooting over 64% to score that many points. This isn't some crazy advanced metric - it's common sense. 3 > 2.

As for FTs - they're a part of basketball. You can bitch about guys like Harden all you want, but the point remains: being able to consistently get to the FT line and shoot FTs at a high rate is a tremendous skill to have. If you're trying to judge a player's total scoring efficiency (which is pretty much the point of TS%), I don't know why you'd want to exclude FTs. Player A and Player B are identical, but Player A takes 10 FTA per game and shoots 90% on them, while Player B takes 5 FTA per game and shoots 70% on them. Which player would you take?

I mean if you want to argue that TS% or eFG% aren't perfect, then that's one thing...but to advocate the use of FG% instead of those 2? Sorry, but you're clueless.

I can't take a metric that doesn't factor in FG and FT misses seriously. It's a stupid metric when you see a guy like George Hill ranked ahead of Lebron James or my personal favorite of seeing Richard Jefferson ranked ahead of Duncan.

[kobyz]

What's your team bro? Last season wasn't first round exit.

:lol

Ohh we won the Memphis series, who were very nba team, excuse me, great for the wingstop!

[Diego20]

Ohh we won the Memphis series, who were very nba team, excuse me, great for the wingstop!

I bet you just figured out we won against Memphis..

:lol

[Chinook]

I can't take a metric that doesn't factor in FG and FT misses seriously. It's a stupid metric when you see a guy like George Hill ranked ahead of Lebron James or my personal favorite of seeing Richard Jefferson ranked ahead of Duncan.

Listen, this isn't a good argument. 1) Those metrics factor in misses. That article is misguided. 2) It's not supposed to "rank" players any more than FG% does. What it does do is reflect a reality that Hill was more efficient than James and that Jefferson was more efficient than Duncan. TS% is NOT an advanced stat. It's not an opinion that can be disagreed with in the same way that PER or RPM can.

[sananspursfan21]

DON'T F---ING DRAG WINGSTOP INTO THIS

[SpursFan86]

I can't take a metric that doesn't factor in FG and FT misses seriously. It's a stupid metric when you see a guy like George Hill ranked ahead of Lebron James or my personal favorite of seeing Richard Jefferson ranked ahead of Duncan.

It does factor in FG/FT misses, just not directly (meaning, FG missed and FT missed aren't variables in the equation). If you continue missing shots, your FGA/FTA go up, but the amount of points you score remains the same. Thus, your TS% decreases. You act like missed FGs or FTs don't affect one's TS%, and that's just flat out wrong.

As for Hill being "ranked" ahead of LeBron or Jefferson being ranked ahead of Duncan - you could find the same sort of oddity with pretty much any stat out there.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/fg_pct_active_p.html

Perkins is ahead of Duncan. Shaun Livingston and Haslem are ahead of LeBron.

[Hoops Czar]

I bet you just figured out we won against Memphis..

:lol

I can't believe people are counting the Grizzlies as a series win. :lol Quite possibly the worst playoff team in the history of the NBA.

[Dex]

71yVR0PyctM

fGjdKQPz9uo

Are you really pulling out highlights of Orlando Dwight from 2011 to reflect his impact in 2016?

Even I think Howard gets more flack than he should as a player, but that's just downright silly. He's a shell of who he used to be.

[Chinook]

Are you really pulling out highlights of Orlando Dwight from 2011 to reflect his impact in 2016?

Even I think Howard gets more flack than he should as a player, but that's just downright silly. He's a shell of who he used to be.

I don't think that's a fair criticism. The OP is talking about career playoff TS%, so Dwight being bad now doesn't mean much. He was dominant in his day, that's why he is so high on the list.

[kobyz]

I bet you just figured out we won against Memphis..

:lol

No, just not a homer and not overrating players like a player fan...

[Kawhitstorm]

Are you really pulling out highlights of Orlando Dwight from 2011 to reflect his impact in 2016?

Even I think Howard gets more flack than he should as a player, but that's just downright silly. He's a shell of who he used to be.

I guess since Shaq was a shell of himself after he was past his prime his CAREER TS% is just a fluke.:wakeup

[look_at_g_shred]

Is it october yet? :sleep

[GSH]

You can't gauge a player's value by looking at TS% in a vacuum. Here's one easy example why:

Dwight Howard gets intentionally fouled 5 times, and he only makes 50% of his FT's. (5-10)
His TS% for that stretch is .568.


Notice who is #2 on the list.

[GSH]

Here's another easy example:

LMA makes 7-10 FG's in a game. He scores 14 points on 10 attempts, and his TS% for that game is .700.

Next game LMA makes 7-10 FG's, but gets 4 And-1 opportunities from fouls. He makes two of the bonus FT's (2-4). This time he scores 16 points on 10 attempts, but his TS% is only .680.

If the refs hadn't blown the four whistles, and LMA hadn't made the extra 2 points, his TS% would have been higher. But the team would have been 2 points worse off, on the same number of shots and possessions.

[itzsoweezee]

LeBron was a horrible shooter last year outside the paint. Not sure what point you're trying to prove. TS isn't a stat meant to evaluate the overall ability of a player.

[dabom]

Here's another easy example:

LMA makes 7-10 FG's in a game. He scores 14 points on 10 attempts, and his TS% for that game is .700.

Next game LMA makes 7-10 FG's, but gets 4 And-1 opportunities from fouls. He makes two of the bonus FT's (2-4). This time he scores 16 points on 10 attempts, but his TS% is only .680.

If the refs hadn't blown the four whistles, and LMA hadn't made the extra 2 points, his TS% would have been higher. But the team would have been 2 points worse off, on the same number of shots and possessions.

That is true. I guess it is true to its name. We should be looking more at Points per possession instead. I see that used but not for single games. I would like that actually. They should add PPP stat to the box score.

[itzsoweezee]

Here's another easy example:

LMA makes 7-10 FG's in a game. He scores 14 points on 10 attempts, and his TS% for that game is .700.

Next game LMA makes 7-10 FG's, but gets 4 And-1 opportunities from fouls. He makes two of the bonus FT's (2-4). This time he scores 16 points on 10 attempts, but his TS% is only .680.

If the refs hadn't blown the four whistles, and LMA hadn't made the extra 2 points, his TS% would have been higher. But the team would have been 2 points worse off, on the same number of shots and possessions.

Obviously, points per possession is a better indicator of offensive productivity. But TS is not trying to measure that.

[itzsoweezee]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ts_pct_active_p.html



Rank
Player
TS%


1.
Kawhi Leonard (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/l/leonaka01.html)
.6023


2.
Dwight Howard (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/h/howardw01.html)
.5965


3.
Stephen Curry (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/c/curryst01.html)
.5950


4.
Danny Green (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/g/greenda02.html)
.5948


5.
James Harden (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/h/hardeja01.html)
.5914



6.
Chris Paul (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/paulch01.html)
.5837



7.
Manu Ginobili (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/g/ginobma01.html)
.5805





54.
Tony Parker (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/parketo01.html)
.5140


:lmao

The Spurs have two amazing defenders that also happen to be amazing shooters. That is almost unheard of. Why would any team break that up just to compensate for the shitty play of their point guard?

[Chinook]

You can't gauge a player's value by looking at TS% in a vacuum. Here's one easy example why:

Dwight Howard gets intentionally fouled 5 times, and he only makes 50% of his FT's. (5-10)
His TS% for that stretch is .568.

Notice who is #2 on the list.

This is a legitimate example, but most of the harm goes away as sample sizes increase. The point behind the .44 coefficient is the percentage of FTs taken as the result of And-1s and Ts as opposed to ones from shooting fouls or bonus fouls. While that leaves room for quirks like the ones you pointed out, it allows one to estimate the TS% for every player in the league by just adding the formula into and Excel sheet of all the stat lines. If you were to actually have to look to see whether the FT was part of a used possession, the stat would be significantly harder to calculate (to the point that it wouldn't be used at all honestly).

It's not perfect, but it should give a near-perfect fit when taken in large samples.


Here's another easy example:

LMA makes 7-10 FG's in a game. He scores 14 points on 10 attempts, and his TS% for that game is .700.

Next game LMA makes 7-10 FG's, but gets 4 And-1 opportunities from fouls. He makes two of the bonus FT's (2-4). This time he scores 16 points on 10 attempts, but his TS% is only .680.

If the refs hadn't blown the four whistles, and LMA hadn't made the extra 2 points, his TS% would have been higher. But the team would have been 2 points worse off, on the same number of shots and possessions.

This isn't all that great of an example. I mean, he missed more scoring opportunities. Of course his percentage should be lower. Again, though, that would be sorted out with a bigger sample size.

[Arcadian]

I'm trying to understand the formula for TS%. Where did the .44 come from? Is that based on something empirical?

[dabom]

I'm trying to understand the formula for TS%. Where did the .44 come from? Is that based on something empirical?

Average off and1's, technicals on the year and probably multiple years.

[Chinook]

I'm trying to understand the formula for TS%. Where did the .44 come from? Is that based on something empirical?

It's essentially accounting for how many free throws do not use possessions. For and-1s and Ts, the coefficient would be 0, and for other free throws, it would be .5. But in order to know which ones to use, you'd have to look at more than the box score. So by taking the weighted average, you can get a good estimate. It doesn't work well for a single game, but it should be nearly perfect for the whole league over the course of a season.

[SAGirl]

Is it october yet? :sleep

seriously.. right?
between Tony vs. Manu threads, Timmy threads, statistical interesting tidbits that tell us nothing new... :sleep
/sigh
:pop:
I am actually contemplating how interesting next season could be when we are going to start seeing so many new young players. I could chat about that for days.

[Kawhitstorm]

LeBron was a horrible shooter last year outside the paint. Not sure what point you're trying to prove. TS isn't a stat meant to evaluate the overall ability of a player.

Who cares how he scores as long as he's scoring at an efficient rate?:rolleyes

LeBron had a TS% of 58% in the postseason b/c he was jacking up sorry ass jumpers like Porker.

[Kawhitstorm]

Obviously, points per possession is a better indicator of offensive productivity. But TS is not trying to measure that.

PPP leaders are usually guys who attempt less than 10 shots a game & live off lobs or spot up 3 point shooters. You aren't going to get those shots on a consistent basis thus it's just for specialist.

[look_at_g_shred]

seriously.. right?
between Tony vs. Manu threads, Timmy threads, statistical interesting tidbits that tell us nothing new... :sleep
/sigh
:pop:
I am actually contemplating how interesting next season could be when we are going to start seeing so many new young players. I could chat about that for days.
Yea for sure! So much new blood! Should be fun

[tholdren]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/ts_pct_active_p.html



Rank
Player
TS%


1.
Kawhi Leonard (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/l/leonaka01.html)
.6023


2.
Dwight Howard (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/h/howardw01.html)
.5965


3.
Stephen Curry (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/c/curryst01.html)
.5950


4.
Danny Green (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/g/greenda02.html)
.5948


5.
James Harden (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/h/hardeja01.html)
.5914


6.
Chris Paul (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/paulch01.html)
.5837


7.
Manu Ginobili (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/g/ginobma01.html)
.5805





54.
Tony Parker (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/parketo01.html)
.5140


:lmao
Wow, what a shitty stat.

[GSH]

This is a legitimate example, but most of the harm goes away as sample sizes increase. The point behind the .44 coefficient is the percentage of FTs taken as the result of And-1s and Ts as opposed to ones from shooting fouls or bonus fouls. While that leaves room for quirks like the ones you pointed out, it allows one to estimate the TS% for every player in the league by just adding the formula into and Excel sheet of all the stat lines. If you were to actually have to look to see whether the FT was part of a used possession, the stat would be significantly harder to calculate (to the point that it wouldn't be used at all honestly).

It's not perfect, but it should give a near-perfect fit when taken in large samples.



This isn't all that great of an example. I mean, he missed more scoring opportunities. Of course his percentage should be lower. Again, though, that would be sorted out with a bigger sample size.


You missed the point. I understand the calculation fine. What I said was that you can't look at it in a vacuum. Since the ultimate point of stats is always to compare one player to another, it's probably a good idea to understand the times when a stat doesn't do that very well... don't you think? If you look at Dwight Howard's TS%, and it's higher than Steph Curry's, does that mean Dwight is a better player, or would help a team more? I can't help but look at the "why", when I see something like that.

For the record, sample size isn't the cure-all you say it is. Position and playing style are a big factor, and they have an effect over the whole season, and whole careers. For his career, Howard has something like 11 FGA to 9 FTA per game. And a LOT of those FTA's are scoring opportunities without any FGA's associated. I just pulled a random year for Shaq. He had 336 two-shot FTA opportunities that year. That's the equivalent of 168 2P shots going up, without any FGA's to go with them. He made a shitty 47% of his FT's, but that gave him a .534 TS% for those 168 scoring opportunities. That's a big enough sample, isn't it?

Since you've established yourself as the bull-goose authority on everything, you should also understand that TS% rewards the shit out of high-variance 3P shooters. A guy who makes 2-10 3-pointers one game, and 6-10 3-pointers the next game, has a scorching .600 TS%. But there's a good chance that his shooting lost his team just as many games as it won. That's not an aberration of sample size. It's something that happens over and over again through a season, and the effect gets magnified in the playoffs when more games are grind-it-out contests in the last few minutes. 3P shots score a lot of points, but they also result in more dry possessions, and more points being scored on the other end. But that doesn't show up at all in TS%, does it? That's always been my knock on Manu - he plays high variance ball even in close, close games.

The point is, TS% tells you something at times, just like any other stat. But the inferences the OP was making? Not so much.

[Kawhitstorm]

The point is, TS% tells you something at times, just like any other stat. But the inferences the OP was making? Not so much.

You narrative is moot when it comes to Danny/Kawhi since they rarely get to the line or just chuck up shots.:sleep

[Chinook]

You missed the point. I understand the calculation fine. What I said was that you can't look at it in a vacuum. Since the ultimate point of stats is always to compare one player to another, it's probably a good idea to understand the times when a stat doesn't do that very well... don't you think? If you look at Dwight Howard's TS%, and it's higher than Steph Curry's, does that meanDwight is a better player, or would help a team more? I can't help but look at the "why", when I see something like that.

So you say the first thing, then you say the second thing. If you think the point of TS% is to say who's better or who's more helpful, then you aren't interpreting it correctly. Is it possible for a dude who mainly dunks to be more efficient than a good three-point shooter? Hell yes. Tyson Chandler in his prime was arguably the most efficient player of the modern era. That doesn't make him a better player or even a better helpful player than Steph, but it doesn't have to.


For the record, sample size isn't the cure-all you say it is. Position and playing style are a big factor, and they have an effect over the whole season, and whole careers. For his career, Howard has something like 11 FGA to 9 FTA per game. And a LOT of those FTA's are scoring opportunities without any FGA's associated. I just pulled a random year for Shaq. He had 336 two-shot FTA opportunities that year. That's the equivalent of 168 2P shots going up, without any FGA's to go with them. He made a shitty 47% of his FT's, but that gave him a .534 TS% for those 168 scoring opportunities. That's a big enough sample, isn't it?

There is not a "big enough sample" it can always be bigger. So as you include other players and seasons, the distribution will become normalized, and the average will approach the mean. Therefore, you will eventually get to the .44 coefficient, which will make TS% near-perfect. Some players may be aberrations, but that won't be a big enough number to skew the usefulness of the stat. You can make it more accurate for a player by moving the .44 coefficient toward .5 if they had mostly shooting fouls and toward 0 if they have more and-1s and Ts, but you don't really have to worry about that in the grand scheme. It evens out.


Since you've established yourself as the bull-goose authority on everything, you should also understand that TS% rewards the shit out of high-variance 3P shooters. A guy who makes 2-10 3-pointers one game, and 6-10 3-pointers the next game, has a scorching .600 TS%. But there's a good chance that his shooting lost his team just as many games as it won. That's not an aberration of sample size. It's something that happens over and over again through a season, and the effect gets magnified in the playoffs when more games are grind-it-out contests in the last few minutes. 3P shots score a lot of points, but they also result in more dry possessions, and more points being scored on the other end. But that doesn't show up at all in TS%, does it? That's always been my knock on Manu - he plays high variance ball even in close, close games.

Since when is it the burden of TS% to show consistency? Or to show how defenses respond to the misses? There can be other stats for that. It would be like blaming blocks for not showing how far away from the basket a player was when they are blocked. Like who cares? That's for other stats to determine. I'm not saying you aren't asking for good data, but I am saying you shouldn't judge a basic stat like TS% for not being an advanced stat.

Yes, though, sample size does limit variance. That's a fundamental law of statistics, not my opinion.


The point is, TS% tells you something at times, just like any other stat. But the inferences the OP was making? Not so much.

It tells you exactly what it's supposed to tell you, and it doesn't tell you what it's not supposed to tell you. If you want gravel, beat a stone. If you want water, go to the river. Don't be mad at the stone because you're thirsty.

[SpursFan86]

TS% is supposed to give you an idea of how efficient of a scorer a player is...that's it. It looks at how many FGA and FTA a player has, and how many points a player scored off those attempts, and then spits out a number. It's not designed to tell you which player is better. All it aims to show is shooting efficiency. Obviously there's more to basketball to that. But criticizing the stat itself because some people misuse it seems strange.

[Seventyniner]

TS% is supposed to give you an idea of how efficient of a scorer a player is...that's it. It looks at how many FGA and FTA a player has, and how many points a player scored off those attempts, and then spits out a number. It's not designed to tell you which player is better. All it aims to show is shooting efficiency. Obviously there's more to basketball to that. But criticizing the stat itself because some people misuse it seems strange.

Even then, two players can have the same TS% but one could have a much higher TO%, making them less efficient on offense overall. You're right, it's just one stat.

[tholdren]

So you say the first thing, then you say the second thing. If you think the point of TS% is to say who's better or who's more helpful, then you aren't interpreting it correctly. Is it possible for a dude who mainly dunks to be more efficient than a good three-point shooter? Hell yes. Tyson Chandler in his prime was arguably the most efficient player of the modern era. That doesn't make him a better player or even a better helpful player than Steph, but it doesn't have to.



There is not a "big enough sample" it can always be bigger. So as you include other players and seasons, the distribution will become normalized, and the average will approach the mean. Therefore, you will eventually get to the .44 coefficient, which will make TS% near-perfect. Some players may be aberrations, but that won't be a big enough number to skew the usefulness of the stat. You can make it more accurate for a player by moving the .44 coefficient toward .5 if they had mostly shooting fouls and toward 0 if they have more and-1s and Ts, but you don't really have to worry about that in the grand scheme. It evens out.



Since when is it the burden of TS% to show consistency? Or to show how defenses respond to the misses? There can be other stats for that. It would be like blaming blocks for not showing how far away from the basket a player was when they are blocked. Like who cares? That's for other stats to determine. I'm not saying you aren't asking for good data, but I am saying you shouldn't judge a basic stat like TS% for not being an advanced stat.

Yes, though, sample size does limit variance. That's a fundamental law of statistics, not my opinion.



It tells you exactly what it's supposed to tell you, and it doesn't tell you what it's not supposed to tell you. If you want gravel, beat a stone. If you want water, go to the river. Don't be mad at the stone because you're thirsty.
LOL chinook always goes to this argument. No one has every "interpreted" a stat correctly except chinook. Yet he is unable to come to terms with statistics being something that happened in the past to ESTIMATE what COULD happen in the future. It's sad really. Chinook is a smart dude, he just can't grasp the foundation. One day