High-Tech Hoops Stats for the Casual Fan – VOL 1 – True Shooting Percentage

Discussion in 'NBA General' started by transplant, Jan 30, 2011.

  1. transplant

    transplant Global Moderator Staff Member Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2011
    Messages:
    4,111
    Likes Received:
    210
    Trophy Points:
    63
    [​IMG]

    Before some people who know me start throwing things, let me begin by saying that I’m not any sort of stats expert and often chide those who I feel put too much stock in the numbers and not enough in what their eyes tell them when watching games. In fact, it’s because I’ve only recently become acquainted with the these advanced basketball statistics and view them with what I feel is a dose of healthy skepticism, that I decided to do this series. If you’re new to these stats, maybe this article will help you cozy up to them a bit. If you’re already a card-carrying stats maven, you may want to read my simplistic take to further enhance your feelings of superiority.

    Once upon a time, when basketball fans wanted to know how their favorite teams and players were doing, they looked to a few simple numbers like win-loss percentage, simple shooting percentage, points scored, rebounds snatched and assists dished. The truth is that this is still about all you’ll find in your local newspaper’s box scores.

    Then long about the 1970s, some new statistics surfaced including steals, blocks, turnovers and breaking rebounds into their offensive and defensive components. Of course today, these are considered to be as basic as the old standards.

    Following on the heels of baseball’s “saber-metrics” movement of the 80s, the 90s saw the birth of a new generation of basketball measurements designed to bring us added insight into team and player performance. We’ll deal with something called True Shooting Percentage (TS%) today.

    We’re all familiar with simple shooting percentage…you take 6 shots, make 3 and you’re shooting 50%. Then along came the three-point shot. Since these shots were harder to make, but carried a hefty 50% bonus for success, simple shooting percentage needed a new partner. “Effective Field Goal Percentage (eFG%) was created. The formula is fairly straightforward:

    Effective Field Goal Percentage = (Field Goals made + (0.5 * 3-point Field Goals Made)) / Field Goal attempts

    Put into words, the eFG% formula simply gives an extra 50% credit for a made three-pointer (the difference between 3 and 2). So with eFG%, if you take 6 shots and make 3, but one of them is a 3-pointer, you’re credited with 3.5 shots made in 6 tries and have a 58.3% eFG%.


    The next question asked was "What about free throws?" They count as points and help your team. Shouldn’t they be taken into account as well? The answer was “Yes” and the stats gurus came up with the True Shooting Percentage statistic. When you read or hear media types writing or talking about a basketball player being efficient or inefficient, it’s a good bet that they’re basing their opinion on this statistic. The formula is a little hairier than eFG%, but let’s stay with it:

    True Shooting Percentage = Points / (2 * (Field Goal attempts + (0.44 * Free Throw Attempts))

    As you can see, since the formula starts with total points scored, 3-point shots are given full credit and made free throws are included. Whether intended or not, perfection is defined in several ways. If you took only 2-point shots and made all of them, you’d have a perfect score of 1.000. Converting on 2/3 of your 3-point shots yields the same result. For free throws, an 88% success rate results in a perfect 1.000 score. Then again, since making better than 2/3 of your 3-pointers or over 88% of your free throws would result in a TS% that exceeds 1.000, perfection is kind of, well, imperfectly defined with this stat.

    Overall, I like the true shooting percentage stat. It does a good job of measuring the efficiency of a scorer and does a good job of exposing the hated “chuckers” who never met a shot they didn’t like. It’s particularly good for big men who don’t typically take many 3-pointers, but (ideally) make a high percentage of their two-point field goals and draw their share of fouls.

    Of course, it has its quirks. Here are a couple examples:

    Making 50% of your two-point field goal attempts is considered pretty good in terms of efficiency, while making only 50% of your free throw attempts is considered downright unacceptable. Yet with the TS% formula, a player who shoots 50% on two-point field goals actually improves his TS% by making only half his free throws. Go figure.

    Player A is fouled and makes his two free throws. Player B makes a basket, is fouled and converts his “And 1.” You’d think that a statistic that seeks to measure scoring efficiency would just love the guy who got 3 points on one play, but it just ain’t so. Player A’s TS% is 1.136 (2 divided by 1.76) while Player B’s is only 1.04 (3 divided by 2.88). A head-scratcher.​

    I also don’t think the formula should include technical free throws made since the player did nothing to earn those opportunities…but that’s just me.

    As with any statistic, the problem is often not with the stat itself, but with what folks try to do with it. Yes, TS% measures scoring efficiency nicely and efficiency is good, but a great TS% does not make you a great player, or even a great shooter for that matter. Players who “play within themselves,” seldom risking a shot they can’t easily make are likely to be TS%-studs, but average or below-average scorers. Again, efficiency’s nice, but in the end you’ve got to score more points than your opponent to win.

    A quick look at the current TS% league leaders illustrates the point:

    1. Tyson Chandler-DAL .732
    2. Nene Hilario-DEN .694
    3. Arron Afflalo-DEN .644
    4. Steve Nash-PHO .642
    5. Amir Johnson-TOR .631

    Don’t get me wrong, these are all nice players, but other than Nash, none are close to being considered great. Chandler and Johnson each average fewer than 10 points per game. Nene and Afflalo are probably the third and fourth best players on their own team. When the Nuggets really need a basket, do they go these efficiency experts? Nope. They go to the pretty darned inefficient Carmelo Anthony (.523 TS%...the NBA median TS% is .532). Why? Because Anthony creates his own shot opportunities rather than waiting for them, and when the shot clock is running out and the game is on the line, you’ve got to get a quality (even if not ideal) shot up…NOW! Anthony, like many other superstars, is regularly asked to take these tough shots under pressure and as a result, sacrifice efficiency for effectiveness.

    As you probably know, the NBA announced the starters for its upcoming All Star game last week. Of these great players (which includes Anthony), only Nash is in the top 20 in terms of True Shooting Percentage. Lebron James is 73rd. Kobe Bryant is 102nd and Derrick Rose is 155th.

    In the 1997-98 season, Michael Jordan led his Chicago Bulls to their 6th title in 8 seasons and collected his 5th MVP trophy while posting a truly mediocre TS% of .533.

    You get the idea…while scoring efficiency is worth measuring and considering in evaluating a player, it is seldom the deciding factor. In basketball, while it’s good to be efficient, it’s better to be, well, just plain good.

    Next up, Player Efficiency Rating or PER. It’s a hummer.

    Tom Nossem
    Sources: basketball-reference.com, espn.com, Jay Johnstone
     

Share This Page