Can somebody explain the big deal about efficiency in the NBA?

[Dirty D]

Efficiency is good but it ain't everything. 2 guys can have identical statlines and play the game differently. Advanced stats will hit you for missing a shot or turning it over, but pass to a teammate without the necessary creative skills to make a play with less than 5 seconds on the shot clock and you're off the hook. Break a defense down and miss a layup, but your teammate's free to tip it in cuz his man left him to challenge your shot? Negative impact to your stats, positive outcome for your team.

Regarding AI, he wasn't the most efficient player but people who go by advanced stats often underrate him cuz of his FG%. Philly's gameplan was for him to shoot 20-40 times every game BECAUSE he was so offensively talented. If that meant he was going 5-for-25 a couple of times a month, they'd live with it. As I always do when AI comes up, I refer you to his playoff series against Toronto in '01 as proof of his greatness.

Regarding Shaq being 2000-01's rightful MVP, I give you this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaq–Kobe_feud#2000.E2.80.932001

While Shaq participated in a feud that almost tore his team apart halfway through the season and demanded a trade, AI's team rallied around him as he lead the league in scoring and steals. Another aspect of the emergence of advanced stats is the devaluation of the traditional stats such as PPG. You can't just give any player in the league 20 shots and expect 20+ points from him. People who think this way don't appreciate how hard it is to generate a good look at the basket in the NBA.

 

[Th3G3ntleman]

The Iverson generation is the WOAT.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

what the fukk are you talking about? I'm talking about a players overall scoring efficiency, TS % will give you an almost exact calcuation of this. Sure, you can go over the splits from everywhere on the court but that doesn't tell you how OVERALL efficient he is, just from certain spots. If I want to figure out how good of a scorer someone is, I look at the overall numbers. I don't care WHERE the points are coming from, it's just the end result that is interesting in this case. I already know that TS % doesn't tell you HOW someone got their points, only their overall efficiency of getting those points.

There aren't many holes in TS %. If you calculate someones TS % by going over the play-by-play data it will be almost identical with what the TS % formula will give you, i've already seen calculations on this. It estimates how many possessions that ends in a FT, and then account for % on 2s, 3s and FTs. It's easily the best way to give you an overall view on someones scoring efficiency.

Makes no sense. Explain. TS% is proven to be best efficiency measure.

To quote myself:

That stat is all types of bullshyt. I feel like smack'n anybody's head that uses it.

It ain't an advanced metric, it isn't even a measure of a player's shooting percentage, much less TRUE shooting percentage. It's a warped measure of points per shot and leaves you with cases where a player may have a lower standard FG% than another, but has a higher TS% because more points are generated through the denom' of a 0.44 FTA and that every missed shot is valued the same (3pt missed shots are valued the SAME as 2pt missed shots but 3pt made shots are valued MORE than 2 pt made shots).

James Harden = 45 FG%
Chris Paul = 48 FG%

James Harden = 60.7 TS%
Chris Paul = 59.3 TS%

Because Harden has a higher FGs/FTAs ratio per game (and makes a fair amount of those free throw attempts) and a higher 3pt% and makes than Paul, it inflates his TS%. It leaves you with a total contrast of a picture that's closer to reality of their actual shooting percentages:

Chris Paul =

At rim - 69%
3ft to 10ft - 51%
10ft to 16ft - 50%
16ft to 3pt - 46%
3pt - 33%
FT - 89%

James Harden =

At rim - 62%
3ft to 10ft - 33%
10ft to 16ft - 37%
16ft to 3pt - 36%
3pt - 36%
FT - 85%

I'm all for more information to be used as further insight into the game, but not when it's used to insult my intelligence. The TS% metric has as much use as a 'boxing out rebound percentage' metric, that has a steals off inbound passes built into its formula.

 

[CuzTheyKnowMe]

Why are y'all acting so dumb???

I feel like bringing 3 point attempts into it only hurts your argument because those are ALWAYS shot at a lower percentage.

It's the reason why your Warriors are having a disappointing season thus far because a team that takes so many 3 point shots and are average at effenciancy can't win consistently and DONT win when it matters.

When 3 point shooters are your main scorers and not role players you live by it and you mos def DIE BY IT.

Is this a serious post?

1. 3 pointers are a harder shot to convert. Of course will be a lower %, but in return have more point value when made. Point?

2. Warriors have been "dissapointing" due to injuries. Theyve also had one of the hardest schedules in the league full of western games and road games.

They are 15-3 when the full starting lineup plays. And have just won 6 in a row and are climbing in the standings fast.

Terrible argument anyway, the Warriors don't rely on 3 point shooting when healthy. They have dribble penetration and low post scoring. And are a great defensive team.

A team that "relies" on 3 point shooting would be Portland.

smh

 

[SwagKingKong]

To quote myself:

Wait, what? So you want to penalize players like Harden for attempting alot of FTs and shooting alot of threes? Or are you arguing that 3pt shots shouldnt be valued more than 2pt shots? Wtf

Yes, percentage wise from each spot of the floor, CP3 is higher. But you aren't factoring in ATTEMPTS in your analysis of their efficiency. He takes 3 more threes per game and 3.5 more FTs per game. This MATTERS. It's what makes him the more efficient scorer. Why are you worried if the misses are counted the same? it's not what TS % is telling you, it's breaking down whos the most overall efficient scorer. Guess what, it doesn't matter that Chris Paul is more efficient in each zone, when Harden is getting a ton of FTs and shooting a ton of 3s. It raises his TS % because it's an efficient shot, that's it.

 

[Malta]

Easy, because efficient players typically win.

Superstar big men are generally the most efficient players on the court, if a wing player can approach that type of efficiency then they are worth building around.

 

[5StarElite]

nikkas making this way more difficult than it is.

You got a brick of yay. Break it down in half between 2 nikkas. One nikka flipping zones like the Jesse White tumblers & re-uppin every 2 weeks while the other nikka baggin up eightballs, takin forever to get it off.

Which nikka would you fukk wit?

 

[7PHX]

the team that wins is the team that scores more points.
to score more points you have to either take more shots than your opponent (more rebounds/less turnovers) or average more points per shot taken (which is measured by things like ts%)

But ts% is not a measure of how good you are at scoring, it just shows how likely you are to get points when you take a shot. That's why you'll see a guy like DeAndre Jordan having a higher ts% than Chris Paul, it's because Paul has to create his own offense, while Jordan just sticks to easy shots he knows he can make. If DeAndre had to shoot as much as CP3, he probably would score less than Paul and have a lower ts%. ts% is more useful for comparing players who have similar roles on offense, for example I'd take DeAndre dunking the occasional lob at 60 ts% over Reggie Evans airballing layups at 49 ts%.

Iverson's ts% wasn't great because he was the 76ers offense, other teams focused on stopping him, and none of his teammates could really take the scoring load off of him. But because Iverson could put up points regardless of the opponent, the 76ers were able to build a great defensive team and let AI handle the offense by himself. If he had Ray Allen and Karl Malone on his team, he probably would've had a pretty high ts%.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Wait, what? So you want to penalize players like Harden for attempting alot of FTs and shooting alot of threes? Or are you arguing that 3pt shots shouldnt be valued more than 2pt shots? Wtf

No I'm not penalising him, that's an example of why this stat isn't accurate. 3pt makes SHOULD BE valued more, but there's always gonna be a flaw if they hold more weight through a make but share the same value as a miss:

"3pt missed shots are valued the SAME as 2pt missed shots but 3pt made shots are valued MORE than 2 pt made shots)"

It favors 3pt shooters/free throw shooters at face value.

Yes, percentage wise from each spot of the floor, CP3 is higher. But you aren't factoring in ATTEMPTS in your analysis of their efficiency. He takes 3 more threes per game and 3.5 more FTs per game. This MATTERS. It's what makes him the more efficient scorer. Why are you worried if the misses are counted the same? it's not what TS % is telling you, it's breaking down whos the most overall efficient scorer. Guess what, it doesn't matter that Chris Paul is more efficient in each zone, when Harden is getting a ton of FTs and shooting a ton of 3s. It raises his TS % because it's an efficient shot, that's it.

What did I just say about amount/percentages in my first post?

If a shot make is valued more than an other yet is valued the same as a miss, it's always going to skew the results. There's no equilibrium in TS% for all players.

 

[Greenstrings]

No I'm not penalising him, that's an example of why this stat isn't accurate. 3pt makes SHOULD BE valued more, but there's always gonna be a flaw if they hold more weight through a make but share the same value as a miss:

"3pt missed shots are valued the SAME as 2pt missed shots but 3pt made shots are valued MORE than 2 pt made shots)"

It favors 3pt shooters/free throw shooters at face value.

What did I just say about amount/percentages in my first post?

If a shot make is valued more than an other yet is valued the same as a miss, it's always going to skew the results. There's no equilibrium in TS% for all players.

It makes sense. Making a 3 is worth more to your team than making a 2pt shot but missing a 3 doesn't hurt your team any more than missing a 2pt shot does so there's no reason why the difference should be noted as the opportunity cost of all missed field goals are the same.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

It makes sense. Making a 3 is worth more to your team than making a 2pt shot but missing a 3 doesn't hurt your team any more than missing a 2pt shot does so there's no reason why the difference should be noted as the opportunity cost of all missed field goals are the same.

As a standalone, yes, but not in a metric that tries to measure efficiency.

 

[Dirty D]

When you talk about the opportunity cost of a missed shot, I think anyone that`s played the game would agree that there are misses that hurt your team more than others (e.g. a blown 3-on-1 that leads to a fast break, an ill-advised pull-up 3 when there`s a passing lane to a cutter available). There`s no advanced stat that captures this kind of nuance.

 

[Greenstrings]

As a standalone, yes, but not in a metric that tries to measure efficiency.

I don't see how. Of course it can only ever serve as a snapshot but the metric itself isn't illogical.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

I don't see how. Of course it can only ever serve as a snapshot but the metric itself isn't illogical.

It's illogical in that it's used as a percentage (it skews the results of actual shooting efficiency). For instance:

player x - 12 points (4 from 12 shooting on 3 pt attempts = 33.3 FG%)

player y - 12 points (6 from 12 shooting on 2 pt attempts = 50 FG%)

Yet they'll both have the same TS%, when we really know that player y was the more efficient player (% wise).

 

[Poitier]

I like efficiency but we've gotten to the point where it's become the thing people try to say holds precedence.

There is never any context.

Versatility/Portability has gotten pretty underrated these days.