About this "new stats era"

[Maga_1]

Statistics are getting a lot of attention in the last few years, the "creation" of new categories are getting kind of ridiculous nowadays and for me it ruins the perspective that most people should watch in the game.

Do people really put that much importance in stuff like PER, Win Shares, EFG and other analytic stuff that we see some posters putting in arguments?

It kills the whole joy of the game, stats will never show the true and effective impact of a player in the game.

[Jlamb47]

Statistics are getting a lot of attention in the last few years, the "creation" of new categories are getting kind of ridiculous nowadays and for me it ruins the perspective that most people should watch in the game.

Do people really put that much importance in stuff like PER, Win Shares, EFG and other analytic stuff that we see some posters putting in arguments?

It kills the whole joy of the game, stats will never show the true and effective impact of a player in the game.

Stats kind of sums it up for the offensive part but not on papers for defense. So it dosnt really show what the player impacts but stats do show what they can do

[Rose'sACL]

Statistics are getting a lot of attention in the last few years, the "creation" of new categories are getting kind of ridiculous nowadays and for me it ruins the perspective that most people should watch in the game.

Do people really put that much importance in stuff like PER, Win Shares, EFG and other analytic stuff that we see some posters putting in arguments?

It kills the whole joy of the game, stats will never show the true and effective impact of a player in the game.
wise people combine what they see and what stats represent and make an informed opinion. Anyone who trusts just one thing is an idiot unless you have the ability to read the game like great coaches like pop, phil etc as they know every play their team is trying to run and every play their team fails to execute.
Most people miss a few plays on either end of the court and stats help a lot in those situations.

[Joyner82reload]

THere are only 3 real stats that matter in the NBA. Turnovers, Offensive rebounding, and TS%. Is turnovers and offesnive rebounding cancel out, i.e. team A has 10 ORB and 5 turnovers(net +5) and team B has 15 ORB and 10 turnovers(net +5), the team with the higher TS% will win the game 99.9% of the time.

[Levity]

the biggest set back this "stats era" brings is that many people, especially ISH posters, are basing their entire opinion of a player, team, or game solely on stats alone.

[Maga_1]

I'm not saying that we shouldn't look at the basic statistics (FG, TO, ASS, REB, etc), but when people start arguing about X player vs Y because of Win Shares, Stats with Adjusted Pace and other stuff like that it can kills the "eye test" that we all should have.

For me, there's no way that we can mantain a correlation between players that played different brands of basketball (60's vs 00's, for ex.) and it's not worthy providing stats to compare players.

[Maga_1]

THere are only 3 real stats that matter in the NBA. Turnovers, Offensive rebounding, and TS%. Is turnovers and offesnive rebounding cancel out, i.e. team A has 10 ORB and 5 turnovers(net +5) and team B has 15 ORB and 10 turnovers(net +5), the team with the higher TS% will win the game 99.9% of the time.

Please shut up, you are one of the persons that made me start this thread. :lol

[fpliii]

THere are only 3 real stats that matter in the NBA. Turnovers, Offensive rebounding, and TS%. Is turnovers and offesnive rebounding cancel out, i.e. team A has 10 ORB and 5 turnovers(net +5) and team B has 15 ORB and 10 turnovers(net +5), the team with the higher TS% will win the game 99.9% of the time.
On a team level, just need to look at four factors (offensive and defensive, so 8 total).

[Sarcastic]

THere are only 3 real stats that matter in the NBA. Turnovers, Offensive rebounding, and TS%. Is turnovers and offesnive rebounding cancel out, i.e. team A has 10 ORB and 5 turnovers(net +5) and team B has 15 ORB and 10 turnovers(net +5), the team with the higher TS% will win the game 99.9% of the time.


Actually there is only 1 stat that matters. The final score. The team that scores more, wins 100% of the time.

[IncarceratedBob]

The sad thing is that the actual players care now

Jordan never gave shit about what his fg% was

players now refuse to take long shots at the end of quarters to protect their precious %

[swagga]

Statistics are getting a lot of attention in the last few years, the "creation" of new categories are getting kind of ridiculous nowadays and for me it ruins the perspective that most people should watch in the game.

Do people really put that much importance in stuff like PER, Win Shares, EFG and other analytic stuff that we see some posters putting in arguments?

It kills the whole joy of the game, stats will never show the true and effective impact of a player in the game.

nice post actually.
people use them because people don't have free & easy & systematized access to (keep in mind that NBA teams DO keep such stats.. and many others):
-PNR/PNP/special on-the-play defense and offense
-shot selection with defense charts and mismatches (e.g varejao shoots a 12 footer alone vs with a defender in his face)
-correct off the ball running of a play (e.g. screens, fake cuts)
-missed tough shots that make sense because the player has drawn the big man to help and the offensive big is in prime position for a putback
-off the ball defense
-players' impact on runs (e.g. kobe scores 3 back2back 3pters in the 4th)
-offensive screen usage to create mismatches from which a play can be made
-passing from the wing to the high post for a quick post pass when the offensive big is fronted
- intelligent switching on defense
- not helping one pass away
- boxing out
- types of assists and passes leading to good offense(cross court or defense shattering cp3 passes vs passing the ball with 2 on the clock for a bad shot from a team POV)
- redundancy vs stats (e.g. 2 stars with superimposed skillsets -wade & bron)
ETC

Of course you also use the eye test for obvious purposes but it's insane to think an entire set of stats (like 50 categories) don't tell you a decent story about the player.

One for the trolls: durant averages alot of assists but from the eye it is obvious that his passing doesn't inffluence the offense in the same league as lebrons. If you look at more advanced stats this is obvious.

It's funny that we are living in the era of basic stats and these can be many times misleading, but when you use sufficient sampling methods and categories you do get to a better and better expected value. statistics 101.

[eklip]

Statistics are getting a lot of attention in the last few years, the "creation" of new categories are getting kind of ridiculous nowadays and for me it ruins the perspective that most people should watch in the game.

Do people really put that much importance in stuff like PER, Win Shares, EFG and other analytic stuff that we see some posters putting in arguments?

It kills the whole joy of the game, stats will never show the true and effective impact of a player in the game.
Advanced stats like PER and WS aren't used to show the impact of a player. They are used to combine all "old" categories into one number.

A player with better PER and WS/48 has usually the better per X minute statistics, but that doesn't mean that he is the better player.

I agree that stats don't show how good a player is, but many fans ignore efficiency and turnovers when they compare statlines (e.g. 20 pts, 10 reb, 5 ast), so I don't mind the advanced statistics. They are helpful.

[navy]

TS%.
TS is arbitrary and doesnt tell the whole story. Simply listing how well they shot from 2,3 and ft is better.

And by arbitrary I mean a made up metric that the creator could change if they wanted to.

[Clyde]

All I care about is wins.....

not really concerned how you get them.

[Maga_1]

nice post actually.
people use them because people don't have free & easy & systematized access to (keep in mind that NBA teams DO keep such stats.. and many others):
-PNR/PNP/special on-the-play defense and offense
-shot selection with defense charts and mismatches (e.g varejao shoots a 12 footer alone vs with a defender in his face)
-correct off the ball running of a play (e.g. screens, fake cuts)
-missed tough shots that make sense because the player has drawn the big man to help and the offensive big is in prime position for a putback
-off the ball defense
-players' impact on runs (e.g. kobe scores 3 back2back 3pters in the 4th)
-offensive screen usage to create mismatches from which a play can be made
-passing from the wing to the high post for a quick post pass when the offensive big is fronted
- intelligent switching on defense
- not helping one pass away
- boxing out
- types of assists and passes leading to good offense(cross court or defense shattering cp3 passes vs passing the ball with 2 on the clock for a bad shot from a team POV)
- redundancy vs stats (e.g. 2 stars with superimposed skillsets -wade & bron)
ETC

Of course you also use the eye test for obvious purposes but it's insane to think an entire set of stats (like 50 categories) don't tell you a decent story about the player.

One for the trolls: durant averages alot of assists but from the eye it is obvious that his passing doesn't inffluence the offense in the same league as lebrons. If you look at more advanced stats this is obvious.

It's funny that we are living in the era of basic stats and these can be many times misleading, but when you use sufficient sampling methods and categories you do get to a better and better expected value. statistics 101.

Excelent post.
In my opinion stats should be used ESPECIALLY to improve game plans for the teams. There's lot of conclusions that you can take about stats, we all know that but minimize every aspect that could make you better is a work that just a few people do nowadays in great style and we don't put credit into that.

Actually, i think the way you use statistics it's what defines the pure aspect of that numbers. Too bad people in here don't understand that, mostly.

[chips93]

TS is arbitrary and doesnt tell the whole story. Simply listing how well they shot from 2,3 and ft is better.

And by arbitrary I mean a made up metric that the creator could change if they wanted to.

what is arbitrary about TS%

it follows very simple logic, and theres nothing subjective about it


All I care about is wins.....

not really concerned how you get them.

knowing how you get them helps you understand how you get some more ...


I'm not saying that we shouldn't look at the basic statistics (FG, TO, ASS, REB, etc), but when people start arguing about X player vs Y because of Win Shares, Stats with Adjusted Pace and other stuff like that it can kills the "eye test" that we all should have.

For me, there's no way that we can mantain a correlation between players that played different brands of basketball (60's vs 00's, for ex.) and it's not worthy providing stats to compare players.

i agree that some stats like PER, that are based on subjective weighting of some stats over others, can be misleading, but what is the argument against pace adjusted stats?

all they do is level the playing field

[Maga_1]

i agree that some stats like PER, that are based on subjective weighting of some stats over others, can be misleading, but what is the argument against pace adjusted stats?

all they do is level the playing field

In my opinion we can't adjust stats acording to pace, but i'm not very familiar with that work so maybe i could be wrong.

I don't think you can adjust Jordan's stats in the early 90's with Durant's stats right now, there is way too many variables in the game.
Basketball evolves, a lot. It's like a new brand of game that comes.

[chips93]

In my opinion we can't adjust stats acording to pace, but i'm not very familiar with that work so maybe i could be wrong.

I don't think you can adjust Jordan's stats in the early 90's with Durant's stats right now, there is way too many variables in the game.
Basketball evolves, a lot. It's like a new brand of game that comes.

no basketball statistician would claim that stats are perfect, but if everybody uses the basic stats ppg, rpg, etc, why not make them more accurate if you can, while not introducing any subjectivity.

obviously you cant adjust for every variable, but when you can adjust for one, and make theses basic stats better reflections of what is going on on the court, then why not?

[Joyner82reload]

In my opinion we can't adjust stats acording to pace, but i'm not very familiar with that work so maybe i could be wrong.

I don't think you can adjust Jordan's stats in the early 90's with Durant's stats right now, there is way too many variables in the game.
Basketball evolves, a lot. It's like a new brand of game that comes.

Of course you can adjust the stats, but there is bias

I.E. if Jordan shot 50% in an era where the average was 48%, then you could assume he was +2% above average. Kobe on the otherhand shot 45% in an era where the average was 45%, 0% above average. So you could extrapolate that Jordan would shoot 47% in today's era, however that's assuming players today are at equal skill levels to players in the past. For all we know, an average NBA player in the 80's might be in the d-league today or a star today might be a role player in the 80's

There are a lot of assumptions made when adjusting stats, and there will be some error. The absolute value of error is impossible to find across era's and we must assume that is insignificant when comparing players.

But it's no different from the eye test. I.E. a player playing against college players will look much better than a player playing against professionals. If you switched a player from todays game and put him in a different era, he could either be better, worse, or the same. When comparing players from different generations by the eye test, we generally assume their competition was the same. It's no different from adjusting stats and assuming the error is miniscule.

[navy]

what is arbitrary about TS%

it follows very simple logic, and theres nothing subjective about it




Explain why they use .44 instead of .45 then.

[game3524]

Advance stats(in general) are useful and have been great for the game IMO. However, PER is complete junk and there is a special place in hell awaiting Hollinger when his time is up on earth.

[TheMarkMadsen]

you are on a website where half the posters think scoring is overrated but that PER, WS/48, Drgt are not overrated

:lol

[Maga_1]

The points i'm trying to prove is:
- Stats are good, no matter what. But the way you use them is what can make them important or not.
- People should care of why that stat is giving you that number, not using the number to say that the X player is better than the Y player because of a 0.01% when there is some many variables that can be englobed.
- (This one i'm a little bias) but people can't compare NBA stats with other basketball stats around the world, it's way too different. Believe me.

[Maga_1]

you are on a website where half the posters think scoring is overrated but that PER, WS/48, Drgt are not overrated

:lol

Exactly.
I can make a point that the guy in my avy was one of the best passers when he was in NBA purely basing on stats. But if you ask about who he is, 80% would not know him and the other 20% will say that he's a scrub because he's not in the NBA anymore :lol

[BankShot]

An intelligent fan should know the advantages and limitations of both qualitative and quantitative analysis.

If you ask me, anyone that thinks statistics have no place in understanding the outcome in sports probably either hasn't taken the time or doesn't have the capacity to understand what the metrics are attempting to convey.

But then again, I'm sure the average stat-hating dope on ISH has a better handle on observing basketball than those paid by a billion-dollar industry to use advanced metrics to gain an edge......

[The Iron Sheik]

what is arbitrary about TS%

it follows very simple logic, and theres nothing subjective about it


the guy who made the formula decided that free throws are worth 0.44 points or whatever it is.

it's just hard to see the reason for ts%. if it's just an amalgam of fg%, 3p% and ft%...things we already have, then why does it exist? What can it tell me that those 3 percentages don't already?

[Anaximandro1]

Raw numbers are distorted by multiple factors including pace and stat - padding.

- In 1967, the league average was 121.6 possessions per 48 minutes

- In 1983, the league average was 103.1 possessions per 48 minutes

- In 1999, the league average was 88.9 possessions per 48 minutes

- In 2014, the league average is 94.0 possessions per 48 minutes

In other words, points produced per 100 possessions, or the percentage of available rebounds a player grabbed while he was on the floor are better performance indicators than points/rebounds per game.

Context is important. Higher usage rates and more playing time correlate with a decrease in efficiency.

For instance, Tony Parker produces 110 points per 100 possessions while Tiago Splitter produces 117 points per 100 possessions.

However Parker leads the Spurs in usage rate and minutes played per game while Tiago ranks very low in those categories, so the comparison makes no sense. That said, Parker vs Duncan makes sense since their usage rates and minutes played per game are similar.

Moreover, stat-padders are exposed in the playoffs. So, playoff advanced stats are good indicators of success.


Typical statline for superstars, regardless of position

WS/48 0.20

PER 25.0

ORtg 110

USG% 30.0

TS% 55.0

DRtg < 105

MP 40


- Prime Jordan has the best set of results over the last 30 years. No one else comes close.


- 2nd Tier -> prime Duncan/Shaq/Hakeem/Lebron. It's too close to call.

Prime Shaq has the higher PER, LeBron the higher WS/48 and ORtg, Duncan has a phenomenal DRtg ...

Of course, you might want to check rebound, assists and block percentages in order to compare prime Duncan/Shaq/Hakeem.


- 3rd Tier -> prime Barkley/Dirk/Kobe/Robinson/Malone/Wade/Garnett. Their stats appear flawed in one way or another.


It seems to me that advanced stats work pretty well.

[BankShot]

the guy who made the formula decided that free throws are worth 0.44 points or whatever it is.

it's just hard to see the reason for ts%. if it's just an amalgam of fg%, 3p% and ft%...things we already have, then why does it exist? What can it tell me that those 3 percentages don't already?

This is a classic example of someone that doesn't even try to understand what a particular metric (True Shooting %) is trying to convey.

If this poster looked into how the TS% is calculated (or though critically for a second about how statistics are formed) he'd hopefully realize its not

"[some] guy who made the formula decided that free throws are worth 0.44 points or whatever it is"

:facepalm

[ZenMaster]

This is a classic example of someone that doesn't even try to understand what a particular metric (True Shooting %) is trying to convey.

If this poster looked into how the TS% is calculated (or though critically for a second about how statistics are formed) he'd hopefully realize its not

"[some] guy who made the formula decided that free throws are worth 0.44 points or whatever it is"

:facepalm

haha that's funny as hell

[STATUTORY]

no one in real life discusses basketball through those lenses. it's exclusively an online phenomenon

[navy]

This is a classic example of someone that doesn't even try to understand what a particular metric (True Shooting %) is trying to convey.

If this poster looked into how the TS% is calculated (or though critically for a second about how statistics are formed) he'd hopefully realize its not

"[some] guy who made the formula decided that free throws are worth 0.44 points or whatever it is"

:facepalm
Except like we said, the .44 is arbitrary and could be changed at the stat makers whim . I do in fact know how he came about that number by the way.

[BankShot]

Except like we said, the .44 is arbitrary and could be changed at the stat makers whim . I do in fact know how he came about that number by the way.

Care to share?? :confusedshrug:

[navy]

Care to share?? :confusedshrug:
The .44 multiplier is because not all free throws take up a possession. Technical foul shots and "and-ones" do not, while there are more than two free throws on one possession with a three-shot foul. Research has determined that about 44% of all free throws take up possessions, thus .44 is used as the multiplier.

[BankShot]

The .44 multiplier is because not all free throws take up a possession. Technical foul shots and "and-ones" do not, while there are more than two free throws on one possession with a three-shot foul. Research has determined that about 44% of all free throws take up possessions, thus .44 is used as the multiplier.

So 0.44 is arbitrary because its determined by research, and said research could potentially be biased because said researchers could decide to change it on a whim... ok i get it. Good call. :applause:

Does this apply to all derived constants in math and science, or just the ones you have a predisposition to dislike?

Like I said, some bozo on ISH has a better handle on advanced statistics in professional basketball than those being paid by a billion dollar industry.

[navy]

So 0.44 is arbitrary because its determined by research, and said research could potentially be biased because said researchers could decide to change it on a whim... ok i get it. Good call. :applause:

Does this apply to all derived constants in math and science, or just the ones you have a predisposition to dislike?

Like I said, some bozo on ISH has a better handle on advanced statistics in professional basketball than those being paid by a billion dollar industry.

No, it is arbitrary because they decided to make the shooting percentage of free throws on a multiplier of possessions, which they had to average out and isnt consistent between years but still remains the static .44.

When you can pick and choose what you want to be in your formula, it is arbitrary. That doesnt mean it is necessarily good or bad.

[The Iron Sheik]

So 0.44 is arbitrary because its determined by research, and said research could potentially be biased because said researchers could decide to change it on a whim... ok i get it. Good call. :applause:

Does this apply to all derived constants in math and science, or just the ones you have a predisposition to dislike?

Like I said, some bozo on ISH has a better handle on advanced statistics in professional basketball than those being paid by a billion dollar industry.

you neglected to address the core of my post. the research to come up with ts% is futile. it just factors in numbers we already have easy access to and combines them into another number. i don't see the utility in it. what makes ts% better than just seeing that a guy shoots 45/32/84? what does it tell me that those things already don't?

just accepting something on the reasoning that "this guy is smarter than me and gets paid to do this" is just as dangerous as what you (falsely) accused me of doing.

[BankShot]

just accepting something on the reasoning that "this guy is smarter than me and gets paid to do this" is just as dangerous as what you (falsely) accused me of doing.

Fair statement, but I'm not necessarily claiming it is as gospel because they say its a significant way to assess a player's impact. I do however take the time to understand what it means before dismissing it because it doesn't agree with my eye test.

With all that being said, I stand by my opinion that an intelligent fan can enjoy watching basketball and understand it through perceptual observations while using statistics (both rudimental and advanced) help in explaining the outcomes of what we see.

[The Iron Sheik]

Fair statement, but I'm not necessarily claiming it is as gospel because they say its a significant way to assess a player's impact. I do however take the time to understand what it means before dismissing it because it doesn't agree with my eye test.

With all that being said, I stand by my opinion that an intelligent fan can enjoy watching basketball and understand it through perceptual observations while using statistics (both rudimental and advanced) help in explaining the outcomes of what we see.

that's fine. and i'm not a person who totally dismisses stats. i just don't see what some stats bring to the table. i mean, when we have stats like win shares, rapm or whatever it is, PER, etc, that put average players in the same category as elites, and people have to say, "oh just ignore that inconsistency" or as some like to call it, "look at it in context", then that's when i become skeptical.

it just feels like some "stats" are created just to try and create a narrative that just...isn't there.

[Maga_1]

Fair statement, but I'm not necessarily claiming it is as gospel because they say its a significant way to assess a player's impact. I do however take the time to understand what it means before dismissing it because it doesn't agree with my eye test.

With all that being said, I stand by my opinion that an intelligent fan can enjoy watching basketball and understand it through perceptual observations while using statistics (both rudimental and advanced) help in explaining the outcomes of what we see.

I don't know if you got the idea from my previous posts that i ignore statistics, if you got that it was not what i was trying to say.
What i said was that most "regular" stats can be used on our daily basis to talk about players and compare it with "eye tests".
The other ones more complex should be used not to determine if a player is better than other, but emphasyze on certain aspects that could be crucial for a player/team to get the best of the team (cold spots shooting, rebound ratings, etc etc).

Am i wrong?

[ZenMaster]

you neglected to address the core of my post. the research to come up with ts% is futile. it just factors in numbers we already have easy access to and combines them into another number. i don't see the utility in it. what makes ts% better than just seeing that a guy shoots 45/32/84? what does it tell me that those things already don't?

just accepting something on the reasoning that "this guy is smarter than me and gets paid to do this" is just as dangerous as what you (falsely) accused me of doing.

TS% takes into account the number of attempts for each of those three shooting percentages.

It's good to know one player shoots 84% on free throws vs another only shooting 80, but it matters that one guy shot 8 free throws per game while the other only shot 2.


I don't know if you got the idea from my previous posts that i ignore statistics, if you got that it was not what i was trying to say.
What i said was that most "regular" stats can be used on our daily basis to talk about players and compare it with "eye tests".
The other ones more complex should be used not to determine if a player is better than other, but emphasyze on certain aspects that could be crucial for a player/team to get the best of the team (cold spots shooting, rebound ratings, etc etc).

Am i wrong?

People use stats for different reasons because they understand the game at different levels and overall watch for different reasons.

You have to remember that this site probably offers the most diversified group of basketball viewers.
I know you've played a lot of ball at a position where you're expected to understand tactics, but there are people here, young kids even, who has never played organized basketball and never could make their local high school team. And it's OK, not all fans are players or former players themselves.
But they're the ones who'll say "look at this guy avering 3.8 turnovers a game, he's a horrible ball handler" instead of "well he's not protecting the ball behind his back leg on a pull back dribble when being hedged hard on pickn'rolls".
They're the ones when asked how many passing options there are out of a regular middle pickn'roll they'll say 4.

I would agree with you 100% that stats are nothing without the context of what they're doing tactically on the floor. But that's from the viewpoint of trying to gauge how to win a game, which is also why what is known as advanced stats on this site isn't what they use and consider advanced in the NBA.
People can't use that Chris Paul shoots x% on a pull up going to his left vs x% going to his right when they're trying to argue that he's better than Isiah Thomas, they need player sum up stats for that like for example win shares or PER, and A LOT of what goes on here is player comparison.

[The Iron Sheik]

TS% takes into account the number of attempts for each of those three shooting percentages.

It's good to know one player shoots 84% on free throws vs another only shooting 80, but it matters that one guy shot 8 free throws per game while the other only shot 2.

that's true. but i could just go to basketball reference and see it right there how many ft's a guy shoots, or just look at the boxscore.

idk, maybe i'm stubborn lol. but it just seems...kinda pointless. me seeing durant has a ts% of 65 instead of a fg% of 52 is not gonna make me think any better or worse of him as a scorer. I already know how deadly he is.

[ZenMaster]

that's true. but i could just go to basketball reference and see it right there how many ft's a guy shoots, or just look at the boxscore.

idk, maybe i'm stubborn lol. but it just seems...kinda pointless. me seeing durant has a ts% of 65 instead of a fg% of 52 is not gonna make me think any better or worse of him as a scorer. I already know how deadly he is.

That's completely fair, other people think differently though and see it as a nice excact number to gauge overall scoring effeciency within the NBA game. Just so they know just exactly how deadly he is.

Edit:It's more usable when you compare his 65% TS and 52% FG with another player in the 52% FG range.

Also, there's a pretty strong correlation with TS% and reducing opp TS% when it comes to teams winning games, more so than with FG%.

[The Iron Sheik]

That's completely fair, other people think differently though and see it as a nice excact number to gauge overall scoring effeciency within the NBA game. Just so they know just exactly how deadly he is.

Edit:It's more usable when you compare his 65% TS and 52% FG with another player in the 52% FG range.

Also, there's a pretty strong correlation with TS% and reducing opp TS% when it comes to teams winning games, more so than with FG%.

alright i get that, and that's cool. it's just weird when i see guys on here saying player a is a better scorer than player b because his ts% is higher, or guys using ts% to describe kobe's efficiency because people nowadays think 45% shooting for a high volume player is inefficient. different strokes, i guess.

and the last part makes sense, since ts% factors in ft's and 3pt's. a team can have a poor fg% but stay in a game because of their 3pt shooting or more commonly, their ft shooting.