Additionally, depending on your offensive scheme three point misses are either positive or negative. Three point shots are both offensively rebounded at a higher rate than other shots and more likely to result in fast break shots for the defensive squad. However, with a good offensive rebounding + transition defense scheme you can eliminate most of the would-be fast breaks. So with a good scheme in place, as long as you are shooting in the .34+ range for 3 point shooting they are quality shots.
Basically, on good defensive teams 3 point shot misses are in the neutral-positive range while on bad defensive teams 3 point shot misses are devastating.
I would disagree that FG% is useless though. If you're shooting 20% from the field as a whole, but shooting 45% from the 3 pt line, it's pretty clear that you're taking a lot of shots that you shouldn't be taking. This would be an extreme example of a high volume shooter gone wrong. There are high volume shooters, however, that are actually a large net positive offensively despite shooting a poorer percentage than your teammates. Danny was one of these "good" high volume shooters, at least in the last season he played. It's why I'm personally excited to see him integrated with the team again: with Paul George being our volume shooter and averaging in the upper 40 percents, Danny doesn't have to be a volume shooter anymore. He can shoot high quality shots and pass the rock on when he's well covered.
However, until that happens....I will stick with my "Super-Sub" line of reasoning for why I would want Lance to come off the bench while pushing Granger to the Starting lineup as the 4th/5th Scoring Option on the floor waiting for scoring opportunities created by GH/PG/West/Hibbert.
To all of the "Start Lance" supporters,
I understand why you would want Lance to Start and to have Granger pushed to the bench...your line of thought isn't unreasonable by any means. But I ( and a few others ) don't think that "Making Lance a Super-Sub" is completely unreasonable as well either. IMHO, there are valid reasons to do both.....where I do not see either option being "right or wrong" but which option maybe the "Better Option over the other". Either moves would improve the Team in different ways and in differing degrees....how much and in what ways is all a matter of opinion ( at least for now ).
What am I trying to say here? I'm just tying to say that we can agree to disagree.
Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.
Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.
Also, if you're shooting 20% field goals, 45% from three, and shooting 30 free throw attempts per game, you're probably scoring really efficiently. FG% tells us little, to nothing. Once again, you always look at TS% to see if they're scoring efficiently. You look at eFG% to see if they're shooting efficiently. End o' story.
LOL I never said anything of the sort.
I don't place the same value on these obscure statistics of some of you, but that doesn't mean I think that good three point shooters "hurt" teams. Yeah, I've spent the last decade here complaining that Reggie's three point shooting hurt the Pacers.......
Over the last two pages you still have a lot of questions to answer. I dumbed it down for you. Everyone has explained in detail the simple information you were having trouble understanding... .
I know you have to finally get it after all that was said. I would either clarify yourself, or if you're still confused I have no need to continue any sort of discussion with you in this thread. =)
Mainstream sites like ESPN and sportsline don't have it on their player pages. You have to go to an advanced website like basketballreference to find it. So yes, by definition it is obscure. But obscure doesn't mean unimportant.
NBA.com has TS% all over the place. In fact, it is nearly impossible to read any NBA dedicated website without a reference to the statistic. So no it's not obscure.
But. Even if it was. What's the point? What are you arguing? Are simply trying to avoid admitting that you were wrong earlier? Or are you still confused?
But why does TS% weight a free throw attempt at 0.44? What is the justification for that?
Also, stop trying to change your comments, like you just trying to say the statistic was "obscure." You tried to argue it was a joke.
TS% has to take in account and 1's and the like as well. Don't ask my why, but it ends up being worth exactly that. A little confusing? Sure. But it works.
It's true though that 0.44 is found to be "close enough". But there are more accurate ways to count it if one is so inclined.
Btw, mattie, I'm not sure you're doing a good job making the case for advanced statistics. TS% definitely is not the end all for efficiency. aamcguy makes arguments for eFG% and FG%, and I might mention PPS as well. But if the topic is still Granger, I'm pretty sure he's ranked as an efficient player by most metrics.
Of course it's not. But I refuse to go beyond TS% at the moment, if someone is struggling to understand such a simple statistic.
Edit- Of course PPP is important, but eFG% as stated early measures actual shooting from the field yet doesn't tell us how efficient a player is at all. I a player can shoot poorly yet be an efficient scorer, or a player can shoot great from the field and be an inefficient scorer.
Last edited by mattie; 11-04-2013 at 10:16 AM.
Here is why I'm not a huge fan of eFG%:
Player A shoots 6-12 from the field. He shoots 0 threes and scores 12 points. That is an eFG% of 50% since there are no threes.
Player B shoots 4-12 from the field. All 4 of his made shots are threes, so he also scores 12 points. That is also an eFG% of 50% (4+ (0.5 x 4)/12.
So it's true that both of these players got the same amount of points out of 12 shots. I suppose that I was guilty of of some hyperbole when I tried to completely write off these statistics. That being said, Player B missed 8 shots while Player A only missed 4. Those 4 extra misses from Player B mean something right? Those 4 misses could lead to empty possessions and fastbreak rebounds for the other team. Maybe the possession would have been better utilized if Player B would have passed it more to Player A for a higher percentage shot?
Like I said, I think that this stat bails out chuckers.
Last edited by vnzla81; 11-04-2013 at 10:46 AM.
@WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!
I realize you're attempting in any way possible to delegitimize these statistics but it is not going to work. I'm sorry.
Also, this is not a matter of opinion. It's a measurement.
More misses and the same amount of points might be better for the shooter's statistics, but it might not be better for the team.
What kind of person wastes their time constantly lying in nearly every post they make?
Also, what is your motivation?
Stop. Just stop.
Last edited by mattie; 11-04-2013 at 11:15 AM.