NBA.com Revamped Stats Engine..TS% replacing FG%?

[Euroleague]

PER never lies for a minimum of at least 100 minutes...

Yes it does. First, it does not rate defense. Secondly, the time you play per minute dictates the stat too much. Either inflating or deflating it too much.

[DatAsh]

They should just use a points-per-attempt stat. You would have to count shots where a foul occurs as an attempt, but it truly would be the most accurate shooting statistic.

Like all methods though, it would still have its flaws. Guys like Kobe, Wade, and Durant are very good at making post foul shot attempts - that they wouldn't have made otherwise -to get to the line. They may not be a flaw depending on how you view things, but it's at the very least an edge case.

[chazzy]

I also like how they list individual defensive rating along with blocks for the Defense tab. It's not perfect, but it generally gives you an idea of how much they're impacting their team's defense while they're on the court.

[pauk]

First of all, i hate this new stats page and these new stats, to confusing, to much, to unnecessary stuff... just keep it simple and keep the most important stats there, we have basketball-reference for everything else...

...and to replace the FG% for TS% on the scoring column is horrible, i seriously didnt expect that stupidity from NBA.com but i was wrong...

TS% is the most flawed and most incorrect way to look into a players shooting..... because it takes into account non Field Goals (Freethrows), which hence can even make a 40% FG scorer lead the league in TS% if his Freethrow accuracy is super high......... and it can also make a 70% FG scorer be waaaaaaaay down on TS% if his FT% accuracy is very low........

Shaq scores 30 ppg on 60% FG.... TS% 50
Reggie scores 20 ppg on 50% FG... TS% 60+

Reggie > Shaq

[chazzy]

First of all, i hate this new stats page and these new stats, to confusing, to much, to unnecessary stuff... just keep it simple and keep the most important stats there, we have basketball-reference for everything else...

...and to replace the FG% for TS% on the scoring column is horrible, i seriously didnt expect that stupidity from NBA.com but i was wrong...

TS% is the most flawed and most incorrect way to look into a players shooting..... because it takes into account non Field Goals (Freethrows), which hence can even make a 40% FG scorer lead the league in TS% if his Freethrow accuracy is super high......... and it can also make a 70% FG scorer be waaaaaaaay down on TS% if his FT% accuracy is very low........

It's only because Durant is higher FT accuracy and volume matters in scoring whether you like it or not. If Dwight is 7/10 from the field but 2/9 from the line, his TS% would reflect his overall efficiency.

[pauk]

It's only because Durant is higher FT accuracy and volume matters in scoring whether you like it or not. If Dwight is 7/10 from the field but 2/9 from the line, his TS% would reflect his overall efficiency.

A super efficient live ball player (field goals, which means 2pt & 3pt) should not have his actual super efficient percentage downplayed & replaced by a new made up stat which favors high percentage FT shooters...

A super sucky live ball player (field goals, which means 2pt & 3pt) should not have his actual sucky percentage increased & replaced by a new made up stat which favors high percentage FT shooters...

Thats my point...

You said with your own words that it reflects a players overall efficiency? Does it now!? Thats actually exactly what it destroys!!

Lets say two players in a game both shoot 20 FGA and 10 FTA....

Player A shot 9 of 20 from the floor (45% FG) and shot 9 of 10 from the FT line, thats 27 pts... his team losed 91-93
Player B shot 11 of 20 from the floor (55% FG) and shot 7 of 10 from the FT line, thats 30 pts... his team won 93-91

Who do you think had a better overall efficiency? Isnt it obvious? Looks like its Player B right? He got extra 3 points because he shot higher FG% at the same exact FGA and despite hitting less FTs than Player A........ but nope, TS% says otherwise here....

Understand now how stupid TS% is?

[Inactive]

Lets say two players in a game both shoot 20 FGA and 10 FTA....

Player A shot 9 of 20 from the floor (45% FG) and shot 9 of 10 from the FT line, thats 27 pts... his team losed 91-93
Player B shot 11 of 20 from the floor (55% FG) and shot 7 of 10 from the FT line, thats 30 pts... his team won 93-91

Who do you think had a better overall efficiency? Isnt it obvious? Looks like its Player B right? He got extra 3 points because he shot higher FG% at the same exact FGA and despite hitting less FTs than Player A........ but nope, TS% says otherwise here....

Understand now how stupid TS% is?

?

Player A had a .553 TS%, and Player B had .615.

[guy]

A super efficient live ball player (field goals, which means 2pt & 3pt) should not have his actual super efficient percentage downplayed & replaced by a new made up stat which favors high percentage FT shooters...

A super sucky live ball player (field goals, which means 2pt & 3pt) should not have his actual sucky percentage increased & replaced by a new made up stat which favors high percentage FT shooters...

Thats my point...

You said with your own words that it reflects a players overall efficiency? Does it now!? Thats actually exactly what it destroys!!

Lets say two players in a game both shoot 20 FGA and 10 FTA....

Player A shot 9 of 20 from the floor (45% FG) and shot 9 of 10 from the FT line, thats 27 pts... his team losed 91-93
Player B shot 11 of 20 from the floor (55% FG) and shot 7 of 10 from the FT line, thats 30 pts... his team won 93-91

Who do you think had a better overall efficiency? Isnt it obvious? Looks like its Player B right? He got extra 3 points because he shot higher FG% at the same exact FGA and despite hitting less FTs than Player A........ but nope, TS% says otherwise here....

Understand now how stupid TS% is?

Ummm, I don't think you know what you're talking about. Player B in your example would have the higher TS%. Player B would have a 59 TS% while player A would have a 55 TS%.

Either way, TS% is still a misleading stat. You can't equate more misses with less misses even if the same amount of points are scored on the same number of attempts because more misses gives the other team more transition opportunities and easier shot attempts as a result. TS% basically says that player A going 10/30 is equal to player B going 15/30 if player A only made 3 pointers and player B only made 2 pointers. It ignores that those 5 extra missed shots probably resulted in easier attempts, ignoring the almost certainty that the other team probably scored more on the other end after player A shot attempts then they did after player B shot attempts.

[chazzy]

Ummm, I don't think you know what you're talking about. Player B in your example would have the higher TS%. Player B would have a 59 TS% while player A would have a 55 TS%.

Either way, TS% is still a misleading stat. You can't equate more misses with less misses even if the same amount of points are scored on the same number of attempts because more misses gives the other team more transition opportunities and easier shot attempts as a result. TS% basically says that player A going 10/30 is equal to player B going 15/30 if player A only made 3 pointers and player B only made 2 pointers. It ignores that those 5 extra missed shots probably resulted in easier attempts, ignoring the almost certainty that the other team probably scored more on the other end after player A shot attempts then they did after player B shot attempts.

True. It's fine strictly looking at it as a scoring efficiency stat, but further analysis needs to be made to make any conclusions beyond that. Either way, it's still a lot better than limiting yourself to FG%

[Inactive]

Either way, TS% is still a misleading stat. You can't equate more misses with less misses even if the same amount of points are scored on the same number of attempts because more misses gives the other team more transition opportunities and easier shot attempts as a result.

There's nothing misleading about that. TS% doesn't purport to tell you how likely an opponent is to score after a miss. It tells you how efficiently you scored.

[tmacattack33]

Ummm, I don't think you know what you're talking about. Player B in your example would have the higher TS%. Player B would have a 59 TS% while player A would have a 55 TS%.

Either way, TS% is still a misleading stat. You can't equate more misses with less misses even if the same amount of points are scored on the same number of attempts because more misses gives the other team more transition opportunities and easier shot attempts as a result. TS% basically says that player A going 10/30 is equal to player B going 15/30 if player A only made 3 pointers and player B only made 2 pointers. It ignores that those 5 extra missed shots probably resulted in easier attempts, ignoring the almost certainty that the other team probably scored more on the other end after player A shot attempts then they did after player B shot attempts.

Yeah but in those five extra misses from Player A (the three point gun slinger), his team has a chance to get an offensive rebound. I don't think you took that into consideration and that pretty much evens everything out.


Anyway, that is a very indirect way to look at TS%. As said above, a shooting efficiency stat's job isn't to tell you about rebound chances or anything like that.

And I can make an indirect claim to counter your indirect claim. A three point gun slinger gives his team more offensive spacing, so he should indeed be look upon more highly. Now that is pretty indirect, but so was your claim.

[guy]

True. It's fine strictly looking at it as a scoring efficiency stat, but further analysis needs to be made to make any conclusions beyond that. Either way, it's still a lot better than limiting yourself to FG%

I guess you can say that when you're looking at strictly scoring efficiency, but I still don't think its better then FG% when looking at the broader view. FG% is a better stat that tells you if players are taking better shots, disregarding how much their worth, but as a result it tells you how much easier or harder they make it for the other team like I said. Obviously none of them are perfect on their own, but I'd rather just go with FG%, 3P%, FT% together so we aren't ignoring these things.

[guy]

Yeah but in those five extra misses from Player A (the three point gun slinger), his team has a chance to get an offensive rebound. I don't think you took that into consideration and that pretty much evens everything out.


Anyway, that is a very indirect way to look at TS%. As said above, a shooting efficiency stat's job isn't to tell you about rebound chances or anything like that.

And I can make an indirect claim to counter your indirect claim. A three point gun slinger gives his team more offensive spacing, so he should indeed be look upon more highly. Now that is pretty indirect, but so was your claim.

We obviously know that offensive rebounds aren't even close to as likely as defensive rebounds, so no it doesn't even everything out. ORB are literally about 25% of all rebounds.

As a shooting efficiency stat, I guess its not bad. But when looking at OVERALL efficiency of a player, it completely ignores that aspect.

[che guevara]

The argument that FTs shouldn't count because it doesn't occur during live action is just downright retarded. I don't know if you guys know this, but you get FTs BECAUSE OF WHAT YOU DID DURING LIVE ACTION.

TS% has a much higher correlation with winning than FG%, it's just a superior stat if you're trying to measure scoring efficiency.

[NumberSix]

The argument that FTs shouldn't count because it doesn't occur during live action is just downright retarded. I don't know if you guys know this, but you get FTs BECAUSE OF WHAT YOU DID DURING LIVE ACTION.

TS% has a much higher correlation with winning than FG%, it's just a superior stat if you're trying to measure scoring efficiency.

But we already have a stat for free throws. If the box say a player was 8/10 on free throws, there's noting to figure out. I know he had exactly 10 free throws and he made 80% of them. Blending things together is just a way of giving LESS information.

IMO, 3 pointers shouldnt even be counted in FG%. It should be it's own stat. More information and more context is ALWAYS better.