Total shooting this total shooting that

[gts]

We need a new statistic that doesn't count dunks and layups as shooting.

Brandan wright "shoots" something like 70% but we all know he can't shoot a j if his live depended on it.

why, because taking high percentage shots is a bad thing?

besides they already have it, it's called a shot chart

[LAZERUSS]

BTW, a missed "and-1" LOWERS TS%. Players like Shaq and Wilt were "punished" in their TS%'s.

[gts]

BTW, a missed "and-1" LOWERS TS%. Players like Shaq and Wilt were "punished" in their TS%'s.

They're not "punished" because they miss those shots

The stat is giving you exactly what it was meant to give

[Pointguard]

I already did. Lillard is a perfect example, as are Reggie Miller and Ray Allen.

These are not examples of GOATs at all. Lillard, really.

I want to see the examples of guys who have a high FG% but not high TS among these all time greats. LOL @ using Shaq and Wilt, two notoriously poor foul shooters. Their FG% was identical to their TS so they are outliers anyway.

I got LoL ed at for using the two most dominant players in history to prove the value of a stat. They were the most feared because they were incredible in making shots. In the top ten of GOATS. 70% of them were ranked upper echelon in fg% at their positions. My guess is 70% or higher were never upper Echelon in TS%. One definitely has a closer relationship. And the one TS person can definitely be considered the outlier.

You seem to be forgetting that there is more to being a great player than just shooting. Any shooting percentage by definition ignores other aspects of the game like rebounding, defense, passing, etc. Shaq and Wilt were both beasts on the boards and on D.

nope, I'm only considering offense.

Do you think Dantley was as good on D and on the boards as Wilt and Shaq?

There were plenty of threads here about best offensive players here and I'm one of the few bringing up Dantley. And I don't bring up TS%.

Any shooting percentage also fails to account for scoring volume. Brandan Wright ring a bell? He has a career FG% better than Shaq and Wilt.

Dantley as a pure scorer vs Gervin as a pure scorer. Both stayed around 30ppg and were primarily scoring. Most great scorers were ranked higher in FG% league wide than TS% which is probably related to the fact that more aggressive players lose their free throw shooting and three point touch as the game goes on.

TS% players are usually less aggressive players. And they usually don't play defense - save Stockton. Lebron played much better defense when his TS% was a 50% points lower. Could be coincidence. High TSers are usually efficient over aggressive type players. You need both type of players but the aggressors are almost always the leaders and dictate how the game is played - see OKC.

[LAZERUSS]

These are not examples of GOATs at all. Lillard, really.
I got LoL ed at for using the two most dominant players in history to prove the value of a stat. They were the most feared because they were incredible in making shots. In the top ten of GOATS. 70% of them were ranked upper echelon in fg% at their positions. My guess is 70% or higher were never upper Echelon in TS%. One definitely has a closer relationship. And the one TS person can definitely be considered the outlier.
nope, I'm only considering offense.

There were plenty of threads here about best offensive players here and I'm one of the few bringing up Dantley. And I don't bring up TS%.
Dantley as a pure scorer vs Gervin as a pure scorer. Both stayed around 30ppg and were primarily scoring. Most great scorers were ranked higher in FG% league wide than TS% which is probably related to the fact that more aggressive players lose their free throw shooting and three point touch as the game goes on.

TS% players are usually less aggressive players. And they usually don't play defense - save Stockton. Lebron played much better defense when his TS% was a 50% points lower. Could be coincidence. High TSers are usually efficient over aggressive type players. You need both type of players but the aggressors are almost always the leaders and dictate how the game is played - see OKC.

[tontoz]

They were the most feared because they were incredible in making shots. In the top ten of GOATS. 70% of them were ranked upper echelon in fg% at their positions. My guess is 70% or higher were never upper Echelon in TS%. One definitely has a closer relationship. And the one TS person can definitely be considered the outlier.
nope, I'm only considering offense.

.

This is one of the dumbest arguments i have ever seen on this site. Congrats!

Shaq and Wilt were feared because of their size/strength/skill, not because of their FG%. You simply don't have the mental capacity to understand that correlation does not equal causation.

Look at the FG% leaders right now. Brandan Wright is at the top. Is anyone afraid of him?



If you had a brain that actually worked you would realize that the top guys in FG% are generally big men who rarely shoot from outside. Big men who physically dominate their opponents also have the biggest impact on a teams defense which of course has no relevance to FG%. A top big man is more valuable than a top small man. Basketball 101

FG% is a measure of shooting, and a lousy outdated one at that. Trying to claim that it is somehow a defining characteristic of all time greats is simply moronic. There is a lot more to being a great player than just shooting from the field.

[chazzy]

People get hung up on the whole .44 thing, but even when you change it to .5 it's a very minute change over the course of a season. It's used in an attempt to account for FTs that don't use possessions, but ultimately it doesn't change too much

[Pointguard]

This is one of the dumbest arguments i have ever seen on this site. Congrats!

Shaq and Wilt were feared because of their size/strength/skill, not because of their FG%. You simply don't have the mental capacity to understand that correlation does not equal causation.

Here's a lesson your parents never got to you: If you are going to be stupid at least be kind that way people might be able to tell what comes out your face is different than what comes out your behind.

You quoted me but weren't smart enough to understand the quote. I said "They were feared because of their incredible ability to make shots." Do you realize how much you imagined in your response above??? And you are showing mega failed arrogance on top of it.

And stop using words you don't understand. Correlation is in the manifestation: If its not in the Greats then why correlate.

Look at the FG% leaders right now. Brandan Wright is at the top. Is anyone afraid of him?

I never said it was comprehensive. PER measures production and strange folk pop up there as well.

If you had a brain that actually worked you would realize that the top guys in FG% are generally big men who rarely shoot from outside. Big men who physically dominate their opponents also have the biggest impact on a teams defense which of course has no relevance to FG%. A top big man is more valuable than a top small man. Basketball 101

FG% is a measure of shooting, and a lousy outdated one at that. Trying to claim that it is somehow a defining characteristic of all time greats is simply moronic. There is a lot more to being a great player than just shooting from the field.

Its simple then.... show us the value of TS % over FG% using GOATS. It has to have a practical manifestation in the best or its a stat that you are imagining has value. I don't mean to frustrate you but your deflating ego has been dancing around this long enough.

[tontoz]

Its simple then.... show us the value of TS % over FG% using GOATS. It has to have a practical manifestation in the best or its a stat that you are imagining has value. I don't mean to frustrate you but your deflating ego has been dancing around this long enough.

There is your problem right there and you can't see it. Shooting stats are meant to measure shooting for ALL PLAYERS, GOOD AND BAD.

This GOAT crap is irrelevant nonsense.

Look at the top 10 in FG% right now. All are bigs.TS benefits smaller players who can hit 3s and free throws. It isn't that hard to grasp.

And when people make their lost of GOAT players they aren't going to be mentioning any 6'3" guys in the top 5.

SHOOTING STATS AREN'T MEANT TO MEASURE WHO THE GOAT's ARE. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR GRANITE SKULL. THEY ARE ONLY MEANT TO MEASURE SHOOTING, FOR ALL PLAYERS NOT JUST THE GOATS.

Shooting stats should be judged solely on how accurately they measure shooting. FG is the worst stat available at measuring shooting.

[Pointguard]

There is your problem right there and you can't see it. Shooting stats are meant to measure shooting for ALL PLAYERS, GOOD AND BAD.

This GOAT crap is irrelevant nonsense.

Look at the top 10 in FG% right now. All are bigs.TS benefits smaller players who can hit 3s and free throws. It isn't that hard to grasp.

And when people make their lost of GOAT players they aren't going to be mentioning any 6'3" guys in the top 5.

SHOOTING STATS AREN'T MEANT TO MEASURE WHO THE GOAT's ARE. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR GRANITE SKULL. THEY ARE ONLY MEANT TO MEASURE SHOOTING, FOR ALL PLAYERS NOT JUST THE GOATS.

Shooting stats should be judged solely on how accurately they measure shooting. FG is the worst stat available at measuring shooting.

all stats are a measure. Get over yourself.

If its worth something it will be manifest in greatness. If its a stat of great value its going to show itself like scoring, rebounding, assist, fg%, per, drg, ortg do with the best. Its more of a second rate stat.

When I asked why did Magic TS better than Bird your brilliant mind said because he took less shots. TS% can cloud otherwise discernable elements in the game because it lumps together different features/aspects of the game.

[Young X]

all stats are a measure. Get over yourself.

If its worth something it will be manifest in greatness. If its a stat of great value its going to show itself like scoring, rebounding, assist, fg%, per, drg, ortg do with the best. Its more of a second rate stat.

When I asked why did Magic TS better than Bird your brilliant mind said because he took less shots. TS% can cloud otherwise discernable elements in the game because it lumps together different features/aspects of the game.

What different elements of the game does it "lump together"? All it tells you is how many points were scored compared to how many scoring possessions were used. It's that simple.

[tontoz]

all stats are a measure. Get over yourself.

If its worth something it will be manifest in greatness. If its a stat of great value its going to show itself like scoring, rebounding, assist, fg%, per, drg, ortg do with the best. Its more of a second rate stat.

When I asked why did Magic TS better than Bird your brilliant mind said because he took less shots. TS% can cloud otherwise discernable elements in the game because it lumps together different features/aspects of the game.

You still dont get it. Not surprised. If you don't understand that it is easier to maintain a higher TS taking fewer shots then i dont even know what to say.

I think i know the source of your confusion regarding FG%. I will try to make this simple enough for you to understand. I am not sure if it is within my abilities but i will try.

The most efficient shots in basketball are at the rim. Good players typically shoot 60%+ at the rim and that isn't even taking into account all the trips to the foul line. Those shots are also the most heavily defended.

GOAT players are frequently the best getting to the rim and finishing. Shaq/Wilt did it primarily with size/athleticism although i think Shaq's skills were underrated.

Jordan and Lebron were probably the best at their respective positions at getting to the rim and finishing. That increases their FG% and makes fools like you think it is a worthwhile stat.

The problem is that FG% isn't meant to identify GOAT players. It is only trying to accurately measure a players shooting from the field. It does a poor job of this as can clearly be seen below:

Player A scores 20 ppg shooting 45% from the field. No 3 attempts.

Player B scores 20 ppg shooting 45% from the field, taking 6 treys a game at 40%.

These two players have the exact same FG% yet player B is a far better shooter than player A. That is why FG% is worthless. Player A is shooting only 45% on 2 point shots. Player B is probably shooting roughly 50% on 2 point shots.

I am sure you are thinking that you can look at FG% and 3pt% separately. But you really can't since 3 pt attempts are counted both in FG% and in 3 pt %.

In order to really look at everything separately you have to look at 2pt%, 3pt% and ft%. Another option is to look at EFG% and FT% if you don't like TS.

But FG% is a crap stat.