Page 10 of 18 FirstFirst ... 67891011121314 ... LastLast
Results 226 to 250 of 437

Thread: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

  1. #226
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    18,876

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bball View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I think the term chucker is someone is shoots the ball a lot. Not necessarily, and likely not in the framework of the offense, nor situationally to the game itself. Whether they hit or not is not a factor to the term. Although a chucker that hits will probably be embraced by more people than a chucker who misses everything.

    At least that is how I use it...
    I'll start by saying that this not how most people use the term "chucker". They use it for people who shoot a lot and they are inefficient as well. Kevin Durant shoots a lot but he will never be called a "chucker" because he is very efficient. Monta Ellis shoots less than Durant but he is called a "chucker" because his efficiency is below par.

    Regarding Granger now. Even if you want to use the term "chucker" that way then it still does not apply to Granger all that well. The 08-09 and 09-10 seasons where the only seasons in which he shot the ball a lot. His career high in USG was 29.6% in the 08-09 season as well. Do you know where does this number puts him in the All-Time NBA USG% list? He puts him only at #190 -> http://www.basketball-reference.com/...ct_season.html

    That's lower than players like Corliss Williamson, Kelly Tripucka, Gilbert Arenas and Stephon Marbury. It's also lower than our very own Jermaine O'Neal. Danny just didn't shot as much as people seem to think.
    Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
    Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

    Panopticon

    -------------

    CJ Watson - 20 points on 6/10 shooting!

    13/4/2014

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Nuntius For This Useful Post:


  3. #227
    Jimmy did what Jimmy did Bball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,927

    Default Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

    Quote Originally Posted by mattie View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    This will not be the the third time I have to point out what you're saying is absolute ********.

    At no point did anyone EVER argue because of TS% Danny should start. In fact, the one person who brought it up, was ME. I made the argument Lance should KEEP the starting job. I did however argue people should stop making up ******** about Danny, to further their stupid ****ing arguments.
    mattie,
    If you could have toned it down a bit this thread might not have devolved like it has.

    I'm sorry I disagree with you. I hope you accept my apology.
    Nuntius was right. I was wrong. Frank Vogel has retained his job.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

    -John Wooden

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Bball For This Useful Post:


  5. #228
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    18,876

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bball View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    It's just that TS wasn't accepted as the holy grail in winning the argument that Danny should start over Lance.
    TS% was never the holy grail in winning that argument. I have spent several hours of my life explaining my position on this "Danny vs Lance" debate in the last few days but I have never, ever implicated TS% in it.
    Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
    Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

    Panopticon

    -------------

    CJ Watson - 20 points on 6/10 shooting!

    13/4/2014

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Nuntius For This Useful Post:


  7. #229
    Jimmy did what Jimmy did Bball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,927

    Default Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nuntius View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    TS% was never the holy grail in winning that argument. I have spent several hours of my life explaining my position on this "Danny vs Lance" debate in the last few days but I have never, ever implicated TS% in it.
    And you've also never made a divisive reply in this thread.

    What is wrong you?
    Nuntius was right. I was wrong. Frank Vogel has retained his job.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

    -John Wooden

  8. #230
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    18,876

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bball View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I know Since balances what he sees on the court with the numbers and doesn't just blindly go to the numbers. He might use the two things and sometimes come to a different conclusion than me, but he's looking at the same things (whether ascribing the same weights or not). We could argue the conclusion of course, but that is not what this thread is about.

    So a big part of what he's arguing with me about "stats versus game observations" we're just not disagreeing about. Even if he doesn't see that.
    And I'm not saying he agrees with me, I'm saying I agree with him.
    So, you agree with me and Mattie as well since we're saying the same thing with Since86.
    Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
    Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

    Panopticon

    -------------

    CJ Watson - 20 points on 6/10 shooting!

    13/4/2014

  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Nuntius For This Useful Post:


  10. #231
    Member aamcguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    West Lafayette
    Age
    23
    Posts
    2,504

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bball View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I guess I do because I agree with those that say Danny's game devolved into him being a chucker. He might be efficient at it according to TS, but he took a lot of bad, rushed shots according the the games I watched the season prior to last. But this thread isn't supposed to be about Danny.

    I don't know if we've even looked at the TS stats for the last full season Danny played and compared them to previous seasons. I've lost track. But all it would tell me is if Danny would be more selective with his shooting he'd have an even better TS.
    His TS% follows roughly the same career arc as his FG%. The only difference is that it gives him credit for being a proficient free throw and three point shooter.
    Last edited by aamcguy; 11-06-2013 at 02:24 PM.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to aamcguy For This Useful Post:


  12. #232
    Intuition over Integers McKeyFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Free Lance!
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

    The notion that TS% measures "efficiency" is not a statement of fact. It is the subjective creation of a stat guy or group of guys who decided to label their long formula with the title "Efficiency."

    Maybe it is an appropriate label, maybe not. I can think of about 15 factors it doesn't or cannot measure, so there may be out there, or should be, or someone will someday create, the

    "Truly, Truly Efficient Percentage" stat.
    .

    .

    .

    .


    “People talk about how quiet he [McKey] is, but he’s really been helpful. He gives a lot of insight to players in how to guard certain teams and what their weaknesses are. The whole team listens to him, and it makes my job a lot easier. Having players like him is what pro basketball is all about for me.” —Larry Brown

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to McKeyFan For This Useful Post:


  14. #233
    All Hail CJ Watson! Nuntius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Somewhere in Southern Europe
    Posts
    18,876

    Sports Logo

    Default Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

    Quote Originally Posted by aamcguy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    His TS% follows roughly the same career arc as his FG%. The only difference is that it gives him credit for being a proficient free throw and foul shooter.
    You mean, 3 point and foul shooter
    Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
    Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

    Panopticon

    -------------

    CJ Watson - 20 points on 6/10 shooting!

    13/4/2014

  15. #234

    Default Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

    I think Danny vs. Lance has a lot of moving parts, such that even if you try to simply argue which player is better in a vacuum, there's a whole other argument to be made as to how each player fits with George, and how each player fits with the bench. I think there's simply too many variables for either side to definitively say that one should start. Trust the coach to know his business, as he is the only one who will see a large enough sample to make the decision.

    As for a "chucker", I always viewed it as someone who shoots at lot at a relatively low percentage. And, just because you are a chucker, doesn't necessarily mean you are an overall bad player, but it is certainly a hole in your game. Josh Smith and Monta Ellis are current chuckers, and I think Antoine Walker and Allen Iverson are prime examples of historic chuckers. I don't think Granger should be mentioned in the same breath with those players. I think that the JOB years have tainted the image of Danny, because he was being asked to take shots early in the shot clock if he was given an open shot from an area where he felt comfortable taking the shot. As we found, there are problems with that philosophy, although maybe that approach works if you have a more talented team, particularly on the defensive end.

    Now, since I have never been comfortable as the peacemaker, let me say that I always hated Derrick McKey as a player. His refusal to take a wide open jumper ground the offense to a halt, and half the time he was injured. To me, the trade for Jonathan Bender was a better trade, because at least Bender had sky-high potential. There, I said it.

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to Eindar For This Useful Post:


  17. #235
    Member Since86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Muncie
    Posts
    20,896

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

    Bball, do you think PG has been chucking the ball this year? PG is shooting the ball 17.5 times per game. The most Danny ever shot in his career, he averaged 19.1 shots per game. Or are we really going to try and say there's a big difference between 1.6 shots per game, drawn out over 30mins of game time?
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    What if someone from a school of business or management school were to ask, How did you do this? How did you get the Pacers turned around? Is there a general approach you've taken that can be summarized?

    Larry Bird: Yeah, patience.

  18. #236
    Intuition over Integers McKeyFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Free Lance!
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

    Quote Originally Posted by Eindar View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I think Danny vs. Lance has a lot of moving parts, such that even if you try to simply argue which player is better in a vacuum, there's a whole other argument to be made as to how each player fits with George, and how each player fits with the bench. I think there's simply too many variables for either side to definitively say that one should start. Trust the coach to know his business, as he is the only one who will see a large enough sample to make the decision.

    As for a "chucker", I always viewed it as someone who shoots at lot at a relatively low percentage. And, just because you are a chucker, doesn't necessarily mean you are an overall bad player, but it is certainly a hole in your game. Josh Smith and Monta Ellis are current chuckers, and I think Antoine Walker and Allen Iverson are prime examples of historic chuckers. I don't think Granger should be mentioned in the same breath with those players. I think that the JOB years have tainted the image of Danny, because he was being asked to take shots early in the shot clock if he was given an open shot from an area where he felt comfortable taking the shot. As we found, there are problems with that philosophy, although maybe that approach works if you have a more talented team, particularly on the defensive end.

    Now, since I have never been comfortable as the peacemaker, let me say that I always hated Derrick McKey as a player. His refusal to take a wide open jumper ground the offense to a halt, and half the time he was injured. To me, the trade for Jonathan Bender was a better trade, because at least Bender had sky-high potential. There, I said it.
    And you were carving out such an "above the fray", seasoned, reasonable and diplomatic position in this thread.



    :
    .

    .

    .

    .


    “People talk about how quiet he [McKey] is, but he’s really been helpful. He gives a lot of insight to players in how to guard certain teams and what their weaknesses are. The whole team listens to him, and it makes my job a lot easier. Having players like him is what pro basketball is all about for me.” —Larry Brown

  19. #237

    Default Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

    Quote Originally Posted by Since86 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Bball, do you think PG has been chucking the ball this year? PG is shooting the ball 17.5 times per game. The most Danny ever shot in his career, he averaged 19.1 shots per game. Or are we really going to try and say there's a big difference between 1.6 shots per game, drawn out over 30mins of game time?
    Are those FGA being weighted for minutes played? I feel like Paul is playing more minutes than Danny would have during that 19.1 season. Of course, i also think that Paul has a LOT more options in terms of passing, so maybe that's a bad comparison, too.
    Last edited by Eindar; 11-06-2013 at 02:38 PM.

  20. #238
    Member Since86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Muncie
    Posts
    20,896

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

    Quote Originally Posted by Eindar View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Are those FGA attempts being weighted for minutes played? I feel like Paul is playing more minutes than Danny would have during that 19.1 season. Of course, i also think that Paul has a LOT more options in terms of passing, so maybe that's a bad comparison, too.
    No, but they were playing pretty much identical numbers. PG is at 36.5 mins to get those and Danny was at 36.2mins to get his. If we go with a per 36, Granger shot 19.0 times, PG is shooting 17.3 times.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    What if someone from a school of business or management school were to ask, How did you do this? How did you get the Pacers turned around? Is there a general approach you've taken that can be summarized?

    Larry Bird: Yeah, patience.

  21. The Following User Says Thank You to Since86 For This Useful Post:


  22. #239
    Running with the Big Boys BillS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Danberry
    Age
    54
    Posts
    11,463

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bball View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    It tells us nothing that we can't glean from focusing on one team and factoring in simple stats. You don't need algebra to know who takes good shots, who makes shots, who knows how to get to the line, and who hits their FT's. You can take the individual pieces and put it all together in your head without a calculator. And when you do it that way you can also pinpoint the areas a player needs to work on.

    It's a little different when looking at the opposition and trying to break down their games. A team and players that you likely don't follow nearly as closely as your own team. At that point the numbers behind the numbers get more important.
    I think the problem is that you oversimplify how to make decisions and over-rely on just watching someone play.

    To use your math analogy, you don't need calculus to determine the area of a triangle. That's a very simple and straightforward equation.

    When you have an irregular figure, you need something more complicated. If you can define it with an equation than calculu8s is great, if not you might have to use an iterative approximation method of some kind, but either way it is a LOT more complicated than just running a simple equation.

    By the same token, if a player played exactly the same way no matter who he was on the floor with, no matter who he was playing against, and no matter when or where he was playing, then it would be intuitively obvious to the most casual observer what his strengths and weaknesses are and what to recommend to fix them or when to use or not use him.

    But no player is that consistent, not even a Jordan or James. The more variables you add (type of play/how it is defended/where the player ends up/who passes or receives the pass), the less likely you are to be able to determine what is happening so it can be fixed. Sure, you can say "thus and so is bad at PnR" or "whoever is not able to pass effectively", but you don't have the luxury of never running a PnR with thus and so or making sure whoever never has to pass out of the post or a double-team. You have to figure out how to fix those, or how to use other players strengths to counter them, or design plays to mask them. The more information you have, the more likely you are to be able to do that - and the more advanced stats you have, the more likely you are to be able to determine exactly what it is (watching the wrong part of your intended receiver's body? Unable to see past players of a certain height/width?) that causes the problem.

    And, no, you DON'T need to use these stats to enjoy watching the game. What you enjoy is entirely up to you, and if observation alone is what you like to use to make statements, fine. A coach isn't paid to watch the game at that high a level, though. And, if you were to state "thus-and-so sucks at the pick and roll" while someone else comments "that's funny, his assist numbers show that he gets more assists off the PnR than anyone else in the East", then the answer is not just to say "well, that stat is no good because it doesn't match my eyes", it is to provide specifics of what you actually saw that causes you to have the opinion "suck" when the assist numbers would imply "pretty good". The problem is that, while numbers are pretty easy to trot out to support a claim, it is harder (and seldom done) for someone using only what they see to describe in enough detail WHAT they see so as to make the argument more than simply "that's not what I see, and I know better, so nyaaaaah" (I know, not what is being said, but I gotta inject SOMETHING light into this...)

    Does any of this make sense?
    BillS

    "Every time I pitched it was like throwing gasoline on a fire. Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw!"
    - Ebby Calvin "Nuke" LaLoosh

  23. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to BillS For This Useful Post:


  24. #240
    Member aamcguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    West Lafayette
    Age
    23
    Posts
    2,504

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

    Quote Originally Posted by Since86 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    For reference too, PG TS% this year is 53.1%. Granger's during that 08-09 when he put up that many shots? 58.4%.
    Actually his TS% this season through 4 games is off the charts at .667.

    Last season, when he put up nearly identical numbers to Granger of two years ago, is when he had a TS% of .531.

  25. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to aamcguy For This Useful Post:


  26. #241
    Running with the Big Boys BillS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Danberry
    Age
    54
    Posts
    11,463

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

    Quote Originally Posted by McKeyFan View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The notion that TS% measures "efficiency" is not a statement of fact. It is the subjective creation of a stat guy or group of guys who decided to label their long formula with the title "Efficiency."

    Maybe it is an appropriate label, maybe not. I can think of about 15 factors it doesn't or cannot measure, so there may be out there, or should be, or someone will someday create, the

    "Truly, Truly Efficient Percentage" stat.
    In all seriousness, what part of individual scoring efficiency (which is what TS% is, not a measure of turnovers or opponent rebound opportunities, or deservedness of taking so many shots) do you think TS% is missing?

    Do you perhaps mean that you would like to see a TEAM offensive efficiency that ranks how well the TEAM does and takes into account negatives for giving up points?
    BillS

    "Every time I pitched it was like throwing gasoline on a fire. Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw! Pkkw!"
    - Ebby Calvin "Nuke" LaLoosh

  27. The Following User Says Thank You to BillS For This Useful Post:


  28. #242
    Jimmy did what Jimmy did Bball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,927

    Default Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

    Quote Originally Posted by Since86 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Bball, do you think PG has been chucking the ball this year? PG is shooting the ball 17.5 times per game. The most Danny ever shot in his career, he averaged 19.1 shots per game. Or are we really going to try and say there's a big difference between 1.6 shots per game, drawn out over 30mins of game time?
    I think Granger took a fair number of shots that were rushed, ill advised due to the game situation, etc. Not smart offensive basketball.

    I haven't really seen PG do that this year to the degree I felt Granger came to be doing it.
    Nuntius was right. I was wrong. Frank Vogel has retained his job.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

    -John Wooden

  29. #243
    Member aamcguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    West Lafayette
    Age
    23
    Posts
    2,504

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bball View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I think Granger took a fair number of shots that were rushed, ill advised due to the game situation, etc. Not smart offensive basketball.

    I haven't really seen PG do that this year to the degree I felt Granger came to be doing it.
    I'm not saying you're wrong, but essentially every Pacers fan now has a higher opinion of what George is over what Granger was. George has taken plenty of bad shots this season, and luckily he's been making a good percentage of them. But I think you would be more likely to not make a big deal out of a bad shot by George simply because you alreay believe he, on average, takes better shots. Danny, as our best player for 5 years or so, has been under scrutiny for a long while.

    Paul George actually took MORE of his shots earlier in the shot clock last year than Danny did two years ago. He did shoot a little better percentage, likely because he was a better finished on the break. But PG takes lots of 3's before the offense can get set


    George: http://www.82games.com/1213/12IND8.HTM
    Granger: http://www.82games.com/1112/11IND8.HTM

    Their shot distributions by time on the clock is at the top right.
    Last edited by aamcguy; 11-06-2013 at 02:58 PM.

  30. The Following User Says Thank You to aamcguy For This Useful Post:


  31. #244
    Jimmy did what Jimmy did Bball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,927

    Default Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nuntius View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    So, you agree with me and Mattie as well since we're saying the same thing with Since86.
    I agree with anyone who thinks TS is 'a' stat and not 'the' stat.

    And if you think this particular stat is tracking things that can be followed intuitively with the inclusion of more standard tools and your own educated observations upon close review of your own core players then I agree with you even more.

    And if you think this stat is much more valuable for scouting than it is your own team, particularly your core players, then I think we should have a party.
    Nuntius was right. I was wrong. Frank Vogel has retained his job.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

    -John Wooden

  32. #245

    Default Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

    Danny's a chuck IMO more for his lack of passing than the number of shots he puts up. This year, with all the weapons we have around him, his bad shot attempts should go down and assist % should go up. If this happens, regardless of how well he shoots it, I'll no longer label Danny a chuck.

  33. #246
    Jimmy did what Jimmy did Bball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,927

    Default Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

    Quote Originally Posted by aamcguy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I'm not saying you're wrong, but essentially every Pacers fan now has a higher opinion of what George is over what Granger was. George has taken plenty of bad shots this season, and luckily he's been making a good percentage of them. But I think you would be more likely to not make a big deal out of a bad shot by George simply because you alreay believe he, on average, takes better shots. Danny, as our best player for 5 years or so, has been under scrutiny for a long while.
    Bad shots pizz me off regardless of who is taking them... but I do accept them as part of the game to a point. And I have to say some bad shots are worse than others. And obviously some players have less leeway than others to take a bad shot.
    Nuntius was right. I was wrong. Frank Vogel has retained his job.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

    -John Wooden

  34. #247
    Wasting Light Hicks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    52,583
    Mood

    Default Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

    Quote Originally Posted by CJ Jones View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Mattie your the poster boy for searching for a stat to prove your point. Yo've posted simple ratings to show how Danny compares to some of the real superstars in the league smh. Then you posted some other stat to prove that Danny was our best defender in 11-12 lol. Don't act like you're innocent with all this misinterpretation of statistics.

    You have to understand the game and how it's played BEFORE you can apply the numbers.
    Selecting specific stats to make a point is not the same thing as laughing off the statistic itself.

  35. The Following User Says Thank You to Hicks For This Useful Post:


  36. #248
    Member Since86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Muncie
    Posts
    20,896

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

    Quote Originally Posted by aamcguy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Actually his TS% this season through 4 games is off the charts at .667.

    Last season, when he put up nearly identical numbers to Granger of two years ago, is when he had a TS% of .531.
    Yeah, I deleted it. After I made the post, I realized hoopdata didn't have the numbers for this season and 2013 was last season. Dopey me.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    What if someone from a school of business or management school were to ask, How did you do this? How did you get the Pacers turned around? Is there a general approach you've taken that can be summarized?

    Larry Bird: Yeah, patience.

  37. #249
    Jimmy did what Jimmy did Bball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,927

    Default Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicks View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Selecting specific stats to make a point is not the same thing as laughing off the statistic itself.
    Nobody is laughing off the statistic itself.
    Nuntius was right. I was wrong. Frank Vogel has retained his job.

    ------

    "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

    -John Wooden

  38. #250
    Member Since86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Muncie
    Posts
    20,896

    Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo Sports Logo

    Default Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bball View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Bad shots pizz me off regardless of who is taking them... but I do accept them as part of the game to a point. And I have to say some bad shots are worse than others. And obviously some players have less leeway than others to take a bad shot.
    Bad shots **** me off too. But when I look at the other options Danny had to play with during that 09 season, him shooting it was far better than others.

    I agree Danny went haywire, but he was asked to do so, and in reality it wasn't that much more than what he should have been doing. As the best scorer/player on that team, he should have been shooting the ball 17 times a game. I'm not going to worry about the difference between 17 and 19, spread out over 36mins of game time.

    I blame JOb much much more than I do Danny. And hasn't Danny even made comments in the past about how he wasn't all that comfortable with their style of play?
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    What if someone from a school of business or management school were to ask, How did you do this? How did you get the Pacers turned around? Is there a general approach you've taken that can be summarized?

    Larry Bird: Yeah, patience.

  39. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Since86 For This Useful Post:


Posting Permissions

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