This thread is sad, and the dudes posting about Jordan's stats are hilarious, mainly because if you use those very same stats against Kobe they will be like "nuh uh, that's not fair!"
its a bunch of other players that went 56% from the field and dont get Lebron credit
- Thread starter Brandon M.
- Start date
so using percentages from all over the floor to indicate how good a shooter is good but combining them to indicate how good a shooter is...is bad?
kobe fan that just can't grasp reality? efg% is a better stat then fg%. the lengths some posters go to, to try and take credit away from lebron is sad.
Propaganda
Superstar
you can look at them separately all you want. but then you're just gonna cherry pick which spots on the floor you like more (or the ones your favorite player is best at) and argue from there when comparing players. that's inevitably where that discussion is gonna go. "b-b-but player a shoots 3% better from 10-15 on the left baseline!" you know, that type of shyt.
ts% and efg% are measures of efficiency. so obviously, those are taken into context cuz nobody's gonna argue that tyson chandler is a better shooter than nash cuz his ts% is higher.
if you want an overall picture, you need to take a step back and take everything into account...not just look at the stuff you want to and fill in the rest.
Propaganda
Superstar
those guys keep snitching on their boy...and they don't even seem to realize it.
Naw. It gives you more perspective. You have to weigh them all into account. You don't just say x-player shoots better from 16-23ft from the left side of the elbow and say he's a better mid-range shooter. Context aside, I'm talking about the closest possible reflection of reality through shooting statistics: it's by breaking it down through spots on the floor and not attempting to group them altogether into a formula.
I never thought about.
Too elaborate futher:
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.
What's the closest reading of their shooting abilities - a breakdown of areas on the floor or the TS% metric?
It's the exact same reason usage% is skewed too:
All of these advanced metrics are skewed, that's why it's better to break shyt down rather than to group everything into a tidy little formula. You're never gonna get the closest reflection of reality that way.
You got all of that from me saying "That's why you use %s from all over the floor. From the rim, 3-9 ft, etc etc. And you use spots/areas as well. An attempt to put all that shyt together in one formula will NEVER work."
Tell me how you came to all of that, from me simply stating a case against using advanced metrics?
labelplant
Wilt Chamberlain
Put it this way LeBron is the only guy ever to shoot 55%+ with 25 PPG + and attempted more than 164 threes (LeBron has 252, Barkley has 162.)
You got all of that from me saying "That's why you use %s from all over the floor. From the rim, 3-9 ft, etc etc. And you use spots/areas as well. An attempt to put all that shyt together in one formula will NEVER work."
Tell me how you came to all of that, from me simply stating a case against using advanced metrics?
Explain what's wrong with efg%? Cause it measures jump shots and layups the same? If Lebron can get a lay up instead of taking a jumper, why should that be a knock on his efficiency?
I might have confused you with another kobe stan in the thread. Do you see why Lebron is getting this attention, as he's having the most efficient season for a wing player probably ever?
Refer to my other post above. Those advanced metrics aren't as reliable or the closest reflection of reality, as %s from spots on the floor paired with attempts are. It's not a knock on his efficiency, but those metrics shouldn't be used to as factor of shooting ability (not when there's better ways to go about finding the answer through other stats).
I don't know why you're even making a case, this thread is clearly a troll thread made by an alias to get yall talking about nothing. I don't have any problems whatsoever about bron getting this attention, his play deserves it. I only have a problem with how you're waving these metrics all about like they actually have any significant worth in the argument.
Propaganda
Superstar
Naw. It gives you more perspective. You have to weigh them all into account. You don't just say x-player shoots better from 16-23ft from the left side of the elbow and say he's a better mid-range shooter. Context aside, I'm talking about the closest possible reflection of reality through shooting statistics: it's by breaking it down through spots on the floor and not attempting to group them altogether into a formula.
I never thought about.
Too elaborate futher:
What's the closest reading of their shooting abilities - a breakdown of areas on the floor or the TS% metric?
It's the exact same reason usage% is skewed too:
All of these advanced metrics are skewed, that's why it's better to break shyt down rather than to group everything into a tidy little formula. You're never gonna get the closest reflection of reality that way.
i feel like we're having two different convos right now. i'm talking about efficiency (which have stats that you've thrown in the bushes) and you seem to be talking about shooting in general, as in raw shooting percentages from each designated spot (or distances i guess) on the floor. so we're not really getting anywhere now.
to your example, if you wanna say that cp3 has more hot spots on the court than harden does and thus is a better/more versatile shooter, fine. but harden puts the ball in the hole at a better rate...because he takes and makes so many fts and threes and there's a ton of value in those shots when they're falling.
i mean, keeping with cp3, his heat map looks about as pretty as durant's and actually has better distance splits than him (kd's better at the rim and behind the arc, cp3's a bit better everywhere else) but i've never heard anyone call cp3 a superior shooter than kd...and again kd's advanced metrics are better because of his ft and 3 point shooting.
so...
make of that what you will.
