Our ridiculous logjam at guard

[RR7]

Correction: TS% is weighted in favor of those who get to the line and make their FTs.

Guys like Dwight Howard, DeAndre Jordan and Andre Drummond get to the line a lot more than C.J., but they do so because they are poor FT shooters. They aren't earning it, quite the opposite, they are being sent to the line as a penalty for being such poor FT shooters, and yes, their poor FT shooting hurts their TS%. It doesn't hurt their eFG%. eFG% masks their poor FT shooting. That's why I don't like it.

And yes, getting to the line AND making your FTs is a skill, a very valuable skill. It's a skill that tends to separate the guys that score 25+ ppg from the guys who score 20 - 25 ppg. The guys who are fighting for scoring titles are also usually the same guys who are leading the league in made FTs.

Last season, the top 4 players in made FTs were all among the top 5 in scoring. There's a pretty tight correlation between made FTs and scoring average. So yeah, it's a valuable skill.

BNM

Last season, jordan shot 58% from FT. Awful. He had an eFG% of 64.5. He had a TS% of 64.8.

Steven Adam's shot 56% from the FT line, but had near identical eFG% and TS% numbers.

Dwight Howard had a higher TS% than eFG%.

Drummond is the same.

All guys are terrible FT shooters, but TS% goes up, higher than their eFG%.

 

[Boob-No-More]

Last season, jordan shot 58% from FT. Awful. He had an eFG% of 64.5. He had a TS% of 64.8.

Steven Adam's shot 56% from the FT line, but had near identical eFG% and TS% numbers.

Dwight Howard had a higher TS% than eFG%.

Drummond is the same.

All guys are terrible FT shooters, but TS% goes up, higher than their eFG%.

You misunderstood what I said. You are comparing apples and oranges.

I said their poor FT shooting hurts their TS%, but does not impact their eFG%.

FT shooting is not used in calculating eFG%. Therefore, by definition, poor FT shooting won't impact eFG%. It doesn't matter if DeAndre Jordan shoots .900 or .400 FT%, his eFG% remains the same.

FT does impact TS%. In calculating TS%, it does matter is DeAndre Jordan shoots .900 or .400.

Based on last years stats, here's DeAndre Jordan's actual TS% and eFG%, what both would have been if he'd shot .900 and what they would have been if he'd shot .400 FT%:

Points = 927, FGA = 578, FTA = 312, FT% = .580, TS% = .648, eFG% = .645
Points = 1027, FGA = 578, FTA = 312, FT% = .900, TS% = .718, eFG% = .645
Points = 871, FGA = 578, FTA = 312, FT% = .400, TS% = .609, eFG% = .645

Notice TS% fluctuates up and down with FT%, but eFG% remains the same.

BNM

 

[RR7]

You misunderstood what I said. You are comparing apples and oranges.

I said their poor FT shooting hurts their TS%, but does not impact their eFG%.

FT shooting is not used in calculating eFG%. Therefore, by definition, poor FT shooting won't impact eFG%. It doesn't matter if DeAndre Jordan shoots .900 or .400 FT%, his eFG% remains the same.

FT does impact TS%. In calculating TS%, it does matter is DeAndre Jordan shoots .900 or .400.

Based on last years stats, here's DeAndre Jordan's actual TS% and eFG%, what both would have been if he'd shot .900 and what they would have been if he'd shot .400 FT%:

Points = 927, FGA = 578, FTA = 312, FT% = .580, TS% = .648, eFG% = .645
Points = 1027, FGA = 578, FTA = 312, FT% = .900, TS% = .718, eFG% = .645
Points = 871, FGA = 578, FTA = 312, FT% = .400, TS% = .609, eFG% = .645

Notice TS% fluctuates up and down with FT%, but eFG% remains the same.

BNM

But the only way you can see that it's negatively effected is to go in and play with the #s. You have 2 stats, 1 that includes FTs, and one that does not. IMO, if you're a terrible shooter, and you have 2 stats, one that includes FTs and one that does not, the FT number seems like it should go lower. Otherwise, you look at TS% leaders, and it's basically the same as the eFG% leaders. And the more trips to the line, regardless of how well you shoot from there, you're going to be higher. Could Jordan's be higher if he shot FTs better? Yes, of course. But the fact that it's as high as it is strictly on FT volume makes it just as dubious as eFG%, IMO.

Especially if you're strictly looking at it as a comparison tool to who is a better shooter, that's where my CJ-Westbrook comparison comes in. Everything is in CJ's favor except for attempts(and makes, obviously), and so TS% puts Westbrook as better.

 

[Boob-No-More]

But the only way you can see that it's negatively effected is to go in and play with the #s. You have 2 stats, 1 that includes FTs, and one that does not. IMO, if you're a terrible shooter, and you have 2 stats, one that includes FTs and one that does not, the FT number seems like it should go lower. Otherwise, you look at TS% leaders, and it's basically the same as the eFG% leaders. And the more trips to the line, regardless of how well you shoot from there, you're going to be higher. Could Jordan's be higher if he shot FTs better? Yes, of course. But the fact that it's as high as it is strictly on FT volume makes it just as dubious as eFG%, IMO.

Especially if you're strictly looking at it as a comparison tool to who is a better shooter, that's where my CJ-Westbrook comparison comes in. Everything is in CJ's favor except for attempts(and makes, obviously), and so TS% puts Westbrook as better.

I really can't parse what you're saying in the first paragraph. I gave a specific example, but all you really need to do is look at the formulas. eFG% doesn't include FTA. TS% does, but it's in the denominator. So, if a player's FT% is less than his TS%, any increase in FTA will cause his TS% to decrease.

Your last sentence is factually incorrect. C.J. had a higher TS% than Westbrook last year (.536 vs. .524) and has a higher career TS% (.552) than Westbrook (.532). The better shooter has the higher TS% in spite of the other player getting to the line a lot more.

BNM

 

[RR7]

I really can't parse what you're saying in the first paragraph. I gave a specific example, but all you really need to do is look at the formulas. eFG% doesn't include FTA. TS% does, but it's in the denominator. So, if a player's FT% is less than his TS%, any increase in FTA will cause his TS% to decrease.

Your last sentence is factually incorrect. C.J. had a higher TS% than Westbrook last year (.536 vs. .524) and has a higher career TS% (.552) than Westbrook (.532). The better shooter has the higher TS% in spite of the other player getting to the line a lot more.

BNM

I used Westbrook from last season, CJ this season. Cherry picking, I know, but it still had the better shooter lower in TS%, even though all the other shooting %s were higher.
I just think each stat has their own use, but neither is going to effectively tell you who a better shooter is on their own. Someone having a higher TS% does not equate to a better "shooter", regardless of if it factors in FT shooting to ding guys.
Seems generically like, eFG% gives you a rough idea per shot, and TS% gives you a rough idea per possession of who provides more value. In a vacuum.

 

[Boob-No-More]

I used Westbrook from last season, CJ this season. Cherry picking, I know, but it still had the better shooter lower in TS%, even though all the other shooting %s were higher.
I just think each stat has their own use, but neither is going to effectively tell you who a better shooter is on their own. Someone having a higher TS% does not equate to a better "shooter", regardless of if it factors in FT shooting to ding guys.
Seems generically like, eFG% gives you a rough idea per shot, and TS% gives you a rough idea per possession of who provides more value. In a vacuum.

Cherry picking is right. You picked Westbrook's best shooting year, a year when he set career highs in both 3FG% and FT% and compared it to a below average shooting year for C.J. (his worst as a starter) and even then Russ' best shooting year barely beats C.J.'s career average (.554 vs. .552). If you were to actually compare identical seasons, you'll see that C.J.'s TS% in 2016-17 was considerably higher than Russ' (.585 vs. .554).

I think looking at their career numbers gives the best picture of who the better shooter is. Some may claim Russ is a better scorer, because he scores more, but he does so less efficiently. He should get credit for all those FTs. They count on the scoreboard, but he should also be dinged for his low FG% and 3FG%. which he is. C.J., should also be penalized for not getting to the line more. He's a great FT shooter, but he shies away from contact. I think, all together, TS% does the best job of capturing a players overall scoring efficiency, and that's why I prefer it over eFG%.

BNM

 

[Boob-No-More]

I also want to thank @RR7 for his thoughtful debate on eFG% vs. TS%. While I have concluded for now, that I still prefer TS% as a measure of overall scoring efficiency, his insights and questions caused me to re-evaluate my stance on the matter. I came to the conclusion that TS% was "superior" many years ago, and have largely ignored eFG% since. I just always dismissed it as a "garbage stat". Well, in retrospect, I may have been too dismissive. Rather than continue to ignore it, whenever it's brought up in a discussion, I'll actually stop to consider why.

That's a good thing. I think I was becoming too set in my ways. It's nice to have my ways of thinking challenged from time to time. I may not always change my mind, but at least I'll consider it. It's healthy, respectful discussions that make an online forum worthwhile. I'm glad we can still have that here.

BNM

 

[Natebishop3]

I also want to thank @RR7 for his thoughtful debate on eFG% vs. TS%. While I have concluded for now, that I still prefer TS% as a measure of overall scoring efficiency, his insights and questions caused me to re-evaluate my stance on the matter. I came to the conclusion that TS% was "superior" many years ago, and have largely ignored eFG% since. I just always dismissed it as a "garbage stat". Well, in retrospect, I may have been too dismissive. Rather than continue to ignore it, whenever it's brought up in a discussion, I'll actually stop to consider why.

That's a good thing. I think I was becoming too set in my ways. It's nice to have my ways of thinking challenged from time to time. I may not always change my mind, but at least I'll consider it. It's healthy, respectful discussions that make an online forum worthwhile. I'm glad we can still have that here.

BNM

No. This is not allowed. You were supposed to tell him to fuck off and call him a basement nerd!

 

[RR7]

I also want to thank @RR7 for his thoughtful debate on eFG% vs. TS%. While I have concluded for now, that I still prefer TS% as a measure of overall scoring efficiency, his insights and questions caused me to re-evaluate my stance on the matter. I came to the conclusion that TS% was "superior" many years ago, and have largely ignored eFG% since. I just always dismissed it as a "garbage stat". Well, in retrospect, I may have been too dismissive. Rather than continue to ignore it, whenever it's brought up in a discussion, I'll actually stop to consider why.

That's a good thing. I think I was becoming too set in my ways. It's nice to have my ways of thinking challenged from time to time. I may not always change my mind, but at least I'll consider it. It's healthy, respectful discussions that make an online forum worthwhile. I'm glad we can still have that here.

BNM

Cheers! I think ultimately we are in a general agreement that no one stat is a great barometer, like you said, looking at average distance of attempts, etc. I was discussing for the fun of it. I like stats. I like the financial aspect of front office stuff more, personally. But, just challenging the mind on a day off. I recognize the drawbacks of stats, and that's the eye test reinforcement. Like you mentioned. There's so many tools available to fans to evaluate the game, which is awesome. I just think it's important to remember what each tries to tell us, and remeember what it doesn't tell us as well.

Also, for efficiency, I agree TS is a better measure!

 

[RR7]

No. This is not allowed. You were supposed to tell him to fuck off and call him a basement nerd!

I do watch games in my basement, ffor what it's worth. That's where the nice TV is at

 

[Natebishop3]

I'm going to be completely honest..... I don't know anything about how stats work or why some are good and some are bad.... I just use them to support my crazy opinions.

 

[Stevenson]

Deal coming soon?

 

[Orion Bailey]

I also want to thank @RR7 for his thoughtful debate on eFG% vs. TS%. While I have concluded for now, that I still prefer TS% as a measure of overall scoring efficiency, his insights and questions caused me to re-evaluate my stance on the matter. I came to the conclusion that TS% was "superior" many years ago, and have largely ignored eFG% since. I just always dismissed it as a "garbage stat". Well, in retrospect, I may have been too dismissive. Rather than continue to ignore it, whenever it's brought up in a discussion, I'll actually stop to consider why.

That's a good thing. I think I was becoming too set in my ways. It's nice to have my ways of thinking challenged from time to time. I may not always change my mind, but at least I'll consider it. It's healthy, respectful discussions that make an online forum worthwhile. I'm glad we can still have that here.

BNM

I need a tissue.

 

[Charcoal Filtered]

Deal coming soon?

I think NO is forcing Terry to play Leonard. Neil probably is trying to justify the summer of 2016.

 

[BonesJones]

I also want to thank @RR7 for his thoughtful debate on eFG% vs. TS%. While I have concluded for now, that I still prefer TS% as a measure of overall scoring efficiency, his insights and questions caused me to re-evaluate my stance on the matter. I came to the conclusion that TS% was "superior" many years ago, and have largely ignored eFG% since. I just always dismissed it as a "garbage stat". Well, in retrospect, I may have been too dismissive. Rather than continue to ignore it, whenever it's brought up in a discussion, I'll actually stop to consider why.

That's a good thing. I think I was becoming too set in my ways. It's nice to have my ways of thinking challenged from time to time. I may not always change my mind, but at least I'll consider it. It's healthy, respectful discussions that make an online forum worthwhile. I'm glad we can still have that here.

BNM

I like TS%, because it reflects FTr to a certain extent. If you drive 10 times a game, and get 5 shots and make 2 (40% 2pt FG) and 5 fouls drawn, (And let's say you make 8 out of 10 FTs) then your overall drives are efficient.

Someone could like at his 2pt FG % and say "it's 40%, That's not good, he's inefficient when he attacks"... But in reality, that player is getting 1.2 Points Per Drive (The equivalent of a 120 ORTG, so his drives are efficient).

TS% is helped by more FTs (As a possession of FTs are the most efficient shots in the league on average), and I like that it can account for a player who's drawing a lot of fouls correlating with a not so efficient clip when he's not fouled.

TS%, BPM, and Per 36 stats are my go-to's.