Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

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

    I was discussing this earlier with Hicks and I thought I gave an example that accurately explained why a player such as Danny Granger, who's had a low FG% his entire career is actually an efficient scorer.

    Obviously we've had threads turn into train wrecks over the years because so many people truly believe Granger isn't an efficient scorer. Well, I get that it can be confusing at sometimes, so for those who do NOT understand, here is an example to help clear it.

    Note- For those people who are into advanced statistics and completely understand this concept, this is not for you. I realize that there are many other issues that come into hand when scoring the ball. Such as too many turnovers, taking the shot within the offense, stopping the ball on offense etc. There is much more that we have to understand when evaluating an individual player.

    One more note: I did not get into the difference between eFG% and TS%. This has to do with freethrows. Please note, that if a player shoots well from the field, he could still not be as efficient as another player who gets to the line at a much more frequent rate. TS% accounts for how many times a given player can get to the line as well as shooting three pointers.

    What TS% tells us in an a vacuum, is whether one player is more or less efficient at getting the ball into the basket. That's it. Just because one player is more efficient at scoring does NOT mean he is better than another. It just means based on his role in the offense, this is how efficient he is at scoring.

    Once again, while it is probably a rare event, I DO believe that a player can have a high TS% yet be detrimental to the offense. This can happen. We are not trying to put too much faith into one particular statistic. However, I use it all the time because it is generally pretty accurate at assessing whether a player is doing well scoring the ball.

    Now, for those who do NOT like this statistic, one of their biggest problems is they don't see how a guy like Danny Granger, who makes only 42% of his baskets is scoring as efficiently as someone like Kobe Bryant who in most years has a respectable FG% of 46 or 47%.

    This is the problem as they see it: Player A misses 58% of his buckets. That means the other team has that many more times to score!! The problem with this thinking, is people wrongly believe a defensive rebound is giving them an EXTRA possession. A defensive rebound is NOT an extra possession. (again, please don't make fun for pointing out such obvious **** like this, while it may seem obvious, some people are having trouble understand this).

    In the following example, I'm showing how a team with MORE misses would actually be an advantage! (Note- in real life, if you shoot too many three's, you don't get to the line and earn points at the free throw line. This example is only created to show that if a player has a lower percentage, because of higher 3pt attempts this is NOT giving the opposing team an advantage.)

    So here's the example. Once again, please try to understand that this is an example giving an impossible scenario. This is merely helping people understand that if a player shoots more three's, as long as they are efficient behind the arc, they are helping their team score.

    Example number 1:

    One team plays an entire game shooting three's, one shoots all two's.

    60 possessions all game for each team, and 60 shots.

    Assume the following: No turnovers, no offensive rebounds.

    Team A makes 20 3's, and scores 60 points.
    Team B makes 30 2's and scores 60 points.

    Now in that given scenario, they tied and both teams had the same possessions.

    They tied. No team won the game.

    Now what we are going to do is change up that first scenario above and imagine those teams are getting offensive rebounds. We'll assume in this second scenario, both teams have the SAME offensive rebounding percentages.

    Both teams in the next scenario get offensive rebounds 10% of the time.

    The team that was taking the three's ends up with 4 offensive rebounds. They had 40 misses, so off of the 40 misses they ended up with 4 rebounds.

    The team that was taking the two's ends up with 3 offensive rebounds. They had 30 misses. So three rebounds off of the 30 misses.

    We assume now instead of 60 shots for each team, there is 64 shots for the team shooting three's, and 63 shots for the team shooting two's.

    Now, we assume that all shooting percentages are the same, so they score the same amount of points per shot as each other.

    So the team shooting all the three's wins the game because they actually had MORE misses.

    Remember, no team shot a better percentage, no team had a better rebound percentage.

    So, for those who didn't understand, does it make sense now? Do you see why Danny Granger, tho not half the player Kobe Bryant is, he is actually a MORE efficient scorer?

    Now, with all of that said, when we talk about Danny Granger in particular, he definitely needed to improve in some areas. As the primary scorer he forced up too many bad shots late in the shot clock. As good as he is at getting to the line and shooting three's, he still was not as good as he could of been had he better looks at the basket. But either way, he was relatively efficient at scoring.

    Edit - It should be fairly obvious, but since it is not I will say it anyways, I am not arguing that misses are a good thing. They are never a good thing. The point of the example above, is to explain in detail, that you cannot get an extra possession from a missed shot. So, in the long run it doesn't matter if you NEVER make a shot, or you make every shot. The only thing that matters is the end result. POINTS. How you got those points is meaningless. The foul line? Three's? Layups? Who cares. Points are what matters.
    Last edited by mattie; 11-05-2013, 02:20 PM.

  • #2
    Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

    One more thing, please understand this, those of you who want to devalue this statistic:

    So I mentioned that TS% doesn't account for turnovers, assists and ball stopping. True. That doesn't mean you can just say, "see it doesn't mean anything." That's not true. What it means, is you also have account for those things on your own to understand how to evaluate a player.

    Is a player stopping the ball too much on offense? Is that his fault? What if it is the coaches fault for designing a bad offense? So that could tell us the player himself can score efficiently but he also is not being used correctly.

    Can you dismiss the stat because it doesn't account for turnovers? No. You just look at how many turnovers a player has. Normally, for any of the really good players you're talking about, T/O's are usually a non issue. But sometimes they are. For instance, if PG is able to score scoring at an efficient rate this year, but doesn't solve the T/O problem he has? Well then you can assume that even if he is finally scoring efficiently, you must remember he still turns the ball over too much so you cannot simply compare him to say, Derrick Rose and immediately assume he's a better scorer.

    What about assists? If a player is creating a lot of scoring opportunities for other players, than it means that player is not as detrimental as we formally thought if said player has a lower TS%.

    With that said, NOT having assists is not necessarily a bad thing either. Maybe a player is not creating offense for others. BUT, if that player is good at moving the ball around to other playmakers (read: unselfish), the rest of the team could STILL get a lot of opportunities. This would mean when asked to score, the player does well, yet he doesn't take away any opportunities for other scorers on the floor.

    Anywho, the last thing I would ask if you're going to respond arguing how this stat does not tell us much, please re-read what I wrote and try to better understand it. Because it absolutely tells how efficient a player is scoring.
    Last edited by mattie; 11-05-2013, 06:54 AM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

      I am a big fan of TS%. Getting extra FTA is a good thing.

      But I did want to give props to mattie for a nice explanation. It was clear and easy to read. That is not always easy to do for complex concepts with subtle details.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

        Are long rebounds leading to transition buckets the fly in the ointment for TS%? Or has there been a metric to debunk that long shots lead to long rebounds and more opportunities for fast break points, which are typically the highest percentage shots you can take? Seems to me that the consensus is that a shot at the rim is the best shot you can take. A three pointer is the second best shot you can take, and a long jumper is the worst shot you can take, with limited exceptions for elite jumpshooters like Jarrett Jack and a circa-2004 Rip Hamilton. Has anyone tried to corrolate the distance at which teams shoot vs. the amount of fast break points they give up? I know there's going to be a lot of statistical noise in the sample, as some teams are more athletic, and so are better at getting back on defense than other teams. I just thought it would be an interesting exercise to determine if there's any truth to the argument that the 3 is a bad shot because a miss leads to a fast break.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

          Thank you Mattie for a nice explanation of a sometimes hard to understand stat. Stats are important in all activities that need to be repeated. One variable is the emotion of the fans who watch the games and the players. If I am convinced that a player(Danny) makes the team better by being on the floor, then I'm probably going to ignore any stat that disagrees with me. Then we are left with the age-old question of the caught- cheating husband "Are you going to believe me, or your lying eyes?"

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

            Originally posted by mattie View Post
            So I mentioned that TS% doesn't account for turnovers, assists and ball stopping. True. That doesn't mean you can just say, "see it doesn't mean anything." That's not true. What it means, is you also have account for those things on your own to understand how to evaluate a player.
            I think this thought process should be applied to ALL statistics. No statistic is perfect, but that doesn't mean it can be ignored if it doesn't explain something you think you are seeing. You have to be able to EXPLAIN why the statistic does or does not apply in a particular situation - and that may involve (*gasp*) using other statistics or detailed (and repeatable) observations not picked up in statistics that explain why a stat is skewed.
            BillS

            A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
            Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

              Originally posted by Eindar View Post
              Are long rebounds leading to transition buckets the fly in the ointment for TS%? Or has there been a metric to debunk that long shots lead to long rebounds and more opportunities for fast break points, which are typically the highest percentage shots you can take? Seems to me that the consensus is that a shot at the rim is the best shot you can take. A three pointer is the second best shot you can take, and a long jumper is the worst shot you can take, with limited exceptions for elite jumpshooters like Jarrett Jack and a circa-2004 Rip Hamilton. Has anyone tried to corrolate the distance at which teams shoot vs. the amount of fast break points they give up? I know there's going to be a lot of statistical noise in the sample, as some teams are more athletic, and so are better at getting back on defense than other teams. I just thought it would be an interesting exercise to determine if there's any truth to the argument that the 3 is a bad shot because a miss leads to a fast break.
              As long as you understand the shooting the three doesn't lead to EXTRA possessions, than I can answer this question for you: No.

              Every great defense in the NBA focuses on stopping two things: Three's and shots at the basket. If three's led to easy points for the other team, than defenses would not focus on stopping them since it would subsequently help their offense. Instead, great defenses such as Indiana's want opposing offenses to shoot long jump shots.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

                Originally posted by BillS View Post
                I think this thought process should be applied to ALL statistics. No statistic is perfect, but that doesn't mean it can be ignored if it doesn't explain something you think you are seeing. You have to be able to EXPLAIN why the statistic does or does not apply in a particular situation - and that may involve (*gasp*) using other statistics or detailed (and repeatable) observations not picked up in statistics that explain why a stat is skewed.
                Exactly.

                I've always felt if you keep an open mind and learn what the numbers are telling you versus attempting to verify what you already believe, you'll end up with a better understanding of the game anyways. This can lead me personally to investigating in every way I can, thus using other statistics to explain what I may or may not see.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

                  There may not be a more meaningless stat than this. Seriously. Just watch the game. That will tell you what you need to know. This stat will confirm what you are seeing after the fact. But it won't tell you crap to look at the stat and then make predictions from it.

                  Wasted possessions are wasted possessions. It doesn't matter if you can massage some stats that try to sugar coat the wasted possession. It's still a wasted possession.

                  It's IMHO an absolutely pointless stat. I can see why the stat might be kept just as a way to go back and confirm some points your judgment tells you about what had transpired in a game or series of games... But your eyes can tell you what is a good shot and what is a bad shot. And too many bad shots are bad for the offense.... good for the other team's offense. And bad shots can be bad for your own defense as well.

                  Seriously... this might be the most worthless stat in basketball. I don't know why it's being trotted out to explain anything. The game is much bigger and more evolved than this stat could possibly show or impact. Really, all this stat does is tell you that there's more to the game than stats in the first place.
                  Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                  ------

                  "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

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

                    While mattie's explanation is technically correct, I don't think I'd particularly care to argue that 3's are valuable because of the extra misses.

                    To me, the difference between 50% from 2 vs 33% from 3 is that it costs you 2 shots on average to get 2 pts, vs 3 shots on average to get 3 pts. In other words, it's each 1 pt per shot, share and share alike. That's all that eFG% is designed to show. Now someone is going to say you're going to get more FTs from 2's or more long rebounds from 3's, and that's fine, there are other stats to show that, but not eFG%. Btw, TS% will show the increased FTs.

                    mattie: I get what you're saying, but it's really unintuitive and I think that's why you're getting pushback (from Bball anyway). Also, the marginal benefit of an extra missed shot is probably so little as to be not worth mentioning (unless it's a team of giants facing a team of midgets, but with real NBA teams I don't think the largest rebounding disparity makes it worth mentioning). It works in your contrived example, but only because you're assuming that the team that gets the defensive board doesn't do anything with it.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

                      What? Are you being sarcastic? Or? I'm being serious, much of your post makes absolutely no sense. Not trying to be a dick... I get that you hate statistics, (which isn't true, you can't evaluate the game without statistics), but what are you talking about?

                      It measures how efficient a player is at scoring. That's it. Everything you said is uhh. Well. This probably isn't the thread for you, I'd go elsewhere.

                      Originally posted by Bball View Post
                      There may not be a more meaningless stat than this. Seriously. Just watch the game. That will tell you what you need to know. This stat will confirm what you are seeing after the fact. But it won't tell you crap to look at the stat and then make predictions from it.

                      Wasted possessions are wasted possessions. It doesn't matter if you can massage some stats that try to sugar coat the wasted possession. It's still a wasted possession.

                      It's IMHO an absolutely pointless stat. I can see why the stat might be kept just as a way to go back and confirm some points your judgment tells you about what had transpired in a game or series of games... But your eyes can tell you what is a good shot and what is a bad shot. And too many bad shots are bad for the offense.... good for the other team's offense. And bad shots can be bad for your own defense as well.

                      Seriously... this might be the most worthless stat in basketball. I don't know why it's being trotted out to explain anything. The game is much bigger and more evolved than this stat could possibly show or impact. Really, all this stat does is tell you that there's more to the game than stats in the first place.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

                        This is the cliff notes of my original post: TS% measures scoring efficiency. Misses do not create extra possessions. That's it. If you got something else from what I wrote, then you missed my point.
                        Last edited by mattie; 11-05-2013, 02:15 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

                          wintermute got what I was saying.

                          I don't hate stats... But I do hate meaningless stats that are used (misused) in meaningless ways that can be better measured with traditional stats and your eyeballs (and the scoreboard).
                          Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                          ------

                          "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

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

                            Originally posted by Bball View Post
                            wintermute got what I was saying.

                            I don't hate stats... But I do hate meaningless stats that are used (misused) in meaningless ways that can be better measured with traditional stats and your eyeballs (and the scoreboard).
                            How is it meaningless to measure if a player is efficient or not?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: True Shooting % Explained: Which is more important? A higher FG% or a higher TS%?

                              Originally posted by mattie View Post
                              The point is TS% measures efficiency. That's it. How efficient a player is scoring. In other words. "We gave the ball to a player this many times. Did they score the majority of the time or did they squander it?"
                              Yes, except you used most of your post to explain how shooting 2's and 3's with the same efficiency results in the team shooting 3's winning. If everyone misunderstands you, perhaps you need to work on your message delivery?

                              For example, you could have used your post to show 2 guys with the same (or different) FG%, one scoring with a mix of 2's, 3's and FT's, the other solely with 2's, count the possessions, count the points, and showed the difference in efficiency with TS%.

                              Originally posted by mattie View Post
                              The example above was showing, in the clearest way possible, that DEFENSIVE REBOUNDS ARE NOT EXTRA POSSESSIONS. On the contrary, tho this would not actually play out in real life, because taking 60 three's in a game is the stupidest **** ever, if there was ANY ADVANTAGE AT ALL, there would be an advantage to MISSING.
                              It looks like you're more interested in arguing this point than the other, even if, as you say, there may not be an advantage at all.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X