[Grades] Grades v. Pelicans 1/21/2014

[HighFlyingMonkey]

Stuff

As usual, you continue to hack away at a strawman argument nobody is coming close to arguing. In fact its already been addressed by jalfa above, if I may quote:

context is very important here, as it always is. TS% is useful when you compare players fulfilling similar roles, using up similar amounts of possessions within a comparable hierarchy. it gets complicated once people start using it to claim the superiority of player A (a third option/roleplayer kind of guy) compared to player B (a second option, whose team relies on him to create shots for himself and others), or something along similar lines.

The bolded is the strawman you continue to throttle without really addressing what anyone is actually arguing.

This is a graph of the top 30 players in Usage rating plotted in relation to their scoring efficiency from last year. These were the best scorers in the NBA, and while its not exactly linear (there is a bit of tug-of-war between volume and efficiency, where greater volume allows for lesser efficiency, and lesser volume demands greater efficiency). You could actually extend this graph further to the left, where you will start seeing more roleplayers appear on the lower end of the usage scale and higher end of the efficiency scale.

You could probably do the same thing for FG% and eFG%, but those are both flawed measurements so your results are going to be off. eFG% doesn't account for the value of free throws, and FG% accounts for neither the value of free throws nor the relative value of three pointers.

So really, TS% is not "mashing" anything up, its rather distilling out a very specific skill (scoring efficiency). Its not crazy to suggest that a DeAndre Jordan dunk is more efficient than a Cousins hook shot. But in order to get a better picture of the player, you need to account for volume. Jordan isn't going to be able to get up a dunk whenever he wants to. A Cousins hook, however, is far more repeatable.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

No no.

first of all you have converted TS% into a team stat, which like most of the good work TS% does is completely obvious as its just a mush stat of all the actual underlying stats that have largely tracked like FG%/OppFG% etc.

I don't understand the objection to team shooting efficiency. You claimed that TS% does not correlate with winning. I showed that at a team level it does correlate with winning. Team shooting efficiency correlates with team winning percentage; individual shooting efficiency contributes to team shooting efficiency. I don't see the objection.

Anyway, TS% is most decidedly NOT a "mush stat". PER - now that's a mush stat. But TS% is points scored per 2 possessions used. That's it. (The "2" is presumably in there to make things look kind of like FG% but it doesn't actually do anything.)

Points scored per possession used. That's shooting efficiency, and it's about as empirical as you can get. It's no less empirical than shots made per shots taken (FG%), and in addition, it accounts for the facts that 1) not all shots are worth the same number of points, and 2) not all points are scored on what is credited as a FGA in the box score. FG% is a good stat to measure scoring efficiency, eFG% is a slightly better stat to measure scoring efficiency, and TS% is basically as good as you can get in measuring scoring efficiency without trying to get all fancy and mush things up in the way that you don't like.

In other words, from a quality standpoint FG% < eFG% < TS%. All of these measure the same thing - scoring efficiency - and they should be used in the same general way, with the same caveats. The guys sitting at the top of the leaderboard on FG% are more or less the same guys sitting on the top of the TS% boards (yep, James Nunnally and his sparkling 2-3 on the season, too). If someone says, "A is a better shooter than B, look at their FG%" nobody blinks an eye, but if someone says "A is a more efficient scorer than B, look at their TS%" then they get dumped on. Makes no sense.

 

[Kingster]

I know, it's just a step down from damned lies, but you can't be serious. As always it should be put in proper perspective, but it's valuable. It shows that guys in love with cute little mid-range jumpers don't help their teams that much, even when they shoot 50% from the field (that's a GOAT mid-range shooting), but don't get to the line.
And perspective for IT is that he plays a) on a losing team and b)besides two very talented players.
a) results in teams not using a lot of energy to stop him, when they can just hang around, lull him into thinking he's beating them, then change the strategy in the last minutes and let IT self-destruct. Interesting that OKC changed pattern to half instead of last minutes, probably wanted garbage time sooner rather than later, and put the hammer down.
b) these two guys teams are actually trying to guard, now that Kings are a serious threat to win, even when opposing teams don't try to gift them the W. And so Thomas is able to slip through the cracks of whatever defensive system is out there to stop DFC/RFG. In Memphis long and quick guard, plus shutting down paint as a strategy, followed by Boogie/Rudy still forcing inside resulted in lack of cracks.
That said IT is a poor man's AI, he can score in bunches, and some teams don't have personnel or good execution on defensive end to stop him. But when they do, IT scores efficiently, only when the other team looks at other guys or doesn't bother that much.

That point does not hold. IT had a 59 TS% before Gay joined the team.

 

[Kingster]

No no.

first of all you have converted TS% into a team stat, which like most of the good work TS% does is completely obvious as its just a mush stat of all the actual underlying stats that have largely tracked like FG%/OppFG% etc.

secondly TS% is not a defensive stat because you can't control how well the other team shoots FTs (slight exception might be Malone's fascination with the Hack-a-Shaq). eFG% gets you as far. Best argument I can see for TS% in that setting is that it could account for one team hacking more or less, but then it differs in how it accounts for that in random ways depending on how well the other team does something over which the defensive team has no control. Or, if you actually want to see what is going on rather than having mommy mush your strained peas and carrots into a single mucky blob, you just actually look at the real stats underlying the "advanced" stats.

Now the larger issue goes back to the first: you turned TS% into a team stat. If it stayed as a team stat it would still be mush, but it would as I said also be fairly obvious.
Top 10 Teams in FG%:
Miami
San Antonio
Houston
Dallas
OKC
Clippers
Golden State
Atlanta
Indiana
Portland

I mean, I doubt the Top 10 TS% leading teams is going to get any more accurate than that. Its well known, its established, its not disputed.

BUT, now let's look at the Top 50 TS% players in the NBA this year:
James Nunnaly
Keith Bogans
Jeff Withey
Ryan Hollins
Chris Anderson
Brandon Wright
LeBron James
Alan Crabbe
Mason Plumlee
Kyle Korver
Rasual Butler
Miroslav Raduljica
Kevin Durant
James Jones
Bismack Biyomob
Greg Smith
Brook Lopez
Anthony Tolliver
Marco Bellinelli
Wesley Matthews
Matt Bonner
Jannero Pargo
Jonas Jerebko
Chris Copeland
Samuel Dalembert
Andrew Bogut
Martell Webster
Alexis Ajinca
Timofey Mozgov
Jose Calderon
Boris Diaw
Andre Igoudala
DeAndre Jordan
Chris Bosh
Nick Collison
James Harden
Courtney Lee
JJ Reddick
Chandler Parsons
Patty Mills
Pablo Prigoni
Robin Lopez
Goran Dragic
Elton Brand
Tiago Splitter
Amir Johnson
Tyson Chandler
Paul George
Mike Miller

That's Top 50 in the NBA, and what, out of those Top 50 in this particular stat we have maybe...4 of the 24 All Stars who will be in the ASG game in a few weeks? If George hadn't squeaked in at #49 it would be 3, and only 2 off contenders. Most are blatant roleplayers. How many of those guys carry their numbers and winning with them wherever they go? I would be hardpressed to find any conventional stat less aligned with actual offensive talent, with guys who make things happen. Theory: TS% IS a team stat. It measures your team's system, your role, and it may measure how well your superior teammates are setting you up. Because most of the time when you are really good at it, it means you are standing under the hoop taking passes for dunks or spotted up with your feet set in the corner while the guys with actual talent, and lower TS%s, create your shot for you.

I think it's pretty obvious you have to use the TS% in conjunction with minutes played and a certain number of points made per game. If you do something reasonable using those rules, you come up with a far different list. If a guy is only averaging 5 shots a game, safe to say he shouldn't be on the list.

 

[Kingster]

For those interested, IT has a somewhat better TS% than Chris Paul, Tony Parker, Deron Williams (and a couple of others that I forget) had at the same age. It doesn't mean that he's going to be as good as any of those guys in the future, but it is something to keep in mind in assessing his ability, especially his scoring ability. Guys like Stockton and Nash eventually got into the 60s in the TS%; they both got into those numbers after their 4th year in the league if memory serves. Currently, IT's TS% is 59%, whereas Chris Paul is 57%.

 

[Bricklayer]

I don't understand the objection to team shooting efficiency. You claimed that TS% does not correlate with winning. I showed that at a team level it does correlate with winning. Team shooting efficiency correlates with team winning percentage; individual shooting efficiency contributes to team shooting efficiency. I don't see the objection.

Anyway, TS% is most decidedly NOT a "mush stat". PER - now that's a mush stat. But TS% is points scored per 2 possessions used. That's it. (The "2" is presumably in there to make things look kind of like FG% but it doesn't actually do anything.)

Points scored per possession used. That's shooting efficiency, and it's about as empirical as you can get. It's no less empirical than shots made per shots taken (FG%), and in addition, it accounts for the facts that 1) not all shots are worth the same number of points, and 2) not all points are scored on what is credited as a FGA in the box score. FG% is a good stat to measure scoring efficiency, eFG% is a slightly better stat to measure scoring efficiency, and TS% is basically as good as you can get in measuring scoring efficiency without trying to get all fancy and mush things up in the way that you don't like.

In other words, from a quality standpoint FG% < eFG% < TS%. All of these measure the same thing - scoring efficiency - and they should be used in the same general way, with the same caveats. The guys sitting at the top of the leaderboard on FG% are more or less the same guys sitting on the top of the TS% boards (yep, James Nunnally and his sparkling 2-3 on the season, too). If someone says, "A is a better shooter than B, look at their FG%" nobody blinks an eye, but if someone says "A is a more efficient scorer than B, look at their TS%" then they get dumped on. Makes no sense.

This is a bit like somebody telling you that a hamburger has 2.2 ounces of vegetable matter in it, and that therefore that tells them more than you know when you know the hamburger has 3 slices of onion, 2 slices of lettuce, and 1 slice of tomato. Even worse yet when the hamburger having 2.2 ounces of vegetable matter is often held out as having flat superiority over a hamburger having 1.8 ounces of vegetable matter. I can't deny that a measure of the ounces of vegetable matter in a burger does in fact measure the amount of vegetable matter in a burger, but I can certainly argue relevance, especially for my brother who hates tomato, or for a triple decker w/cheese heart attack burger that dispense with vegetable matter altogether in exchange for guiltier pleasures.

Three GMs go to make a trade. This is the information each of them has in front of them:

GM 1: Advanced Metric Boy
Player A: 58.8% TS%
Player B: 58.7% TS%

GM 2: Real Stat Man
Player A: 56.7 FG% (on 14.5 att/gm), 36.4 3pt% (on 0.4 att/gm), 68.2 FT% (on 2.9 att/gm)
Player B: 44.4 FG% (on 10.6 att/gm), 39.3 3pt% (on 5.3 att/gm), 82.7 FT% (on 3.0 att/gm)

I submit to you that GM2 knows FAR more about those two players. In fact those numbers are revealing enough that you can probably come up with a semi accurate description of their respective games without even knowing who they are/watching the games. With a FG% that high, on that number of attempts, no three pointers, and a shaky FT% on very few attempts, Player A almost certainly has to be a midrange or extended post big man of the Al Jeffereson class. With 50% of his shots coming as threes, and few FTs, Player B is certainly a three point bombing perimeter specialist. And yet TS% will tell you they are identical. Great stat.

I further submit to you:
Gm3: Actually watches the damn games guy:
thinks Player C: 54.9% TS% , is a better offensive player than either.

TS% is the exact opposite of an "advanced" stat. It obscures, not clarifies. Blurs together semi-related concepts, rather than sharpens the focus. You cannot deny TS% does in fact measure some overall measure of scoring efficiency. You can certainly argue the relevance of that particular piece of information on an individual basis.













P.S. Player A: Horford; Player B: Meeks; Player C: Cousins

 

[Gilles]

That point does not hold. IT had a 59 TS% before Gay joined the team.

Obviously, before the trade point b) was about one guy, that opposition worried about, but it also included a lot more of a), so teams didn't really bother.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I assume you're only looking at this season (so far a down year for Curry - lowest FG% and 3PT% of his career), because Curry's career TS% is higher than IT's.

But if you can't take TS% seriously as a statistic because IT's is higher than Curry's this year, then I suppose you can't take FG% or 3PT% seriously, either.

 

[Entity]

IT is better than curry? I bet GS calls everyday trying to make that trade and we just hang up

 

[jalfa]

This is a bit like somebody telling you that a hamburger has 2.2 ounces of vegetable matter in it, and that therefore that tells them more than you know when you know the hamburger has 3 slices of onion, 2 slices of lettuce, and 1 slice of tomato. Even worse yet when the hamburger having 2.2 ounces of vegetable matter is often held out as having flat superiority over a hamburger having 1.8 ounces of vegetable matter. I can't deny that a measure of the ounces of vegetable matter in a burger does in fact measure the amount of vegetable matter in a burger, but I can certainly argue relevance, especially for my brother who hates tomato, or for a triple decker w/cheese heart attack burger that dispense with vegetable matter altogether in exchange for guiltier pleasures.

Three GMs go to make a trade. This is the information each of them has in front of them:

GM 1: Advanced Metric Boy
Player A: 58.8% TS%
Player B: 58.7% TS%

GM 2: Real Stat Man
Player A: 56.7 FG% (on 14.5 att/gm), 36.4 3pt% (on 0.4 att/gm), 68.2 FT% (on 2.9 att/gm)
Player B: 44.4 FG% (on 10.6 att/gm), 39.3 3pt% (on 5.3 att/gm), 82.7 FT% (on 3.0 att/gm)

I submit to you that GM2 knows FAR more about those two players. In fact those numbers are revealing enough that you can probably come up with a semi accurate description of their respective games without even knowing who they are/watching the games. With a FG% that high, on that number of attempts, no three pointers, and a shaky FT% on very few attempts, Player A almost certainly has to be a midrange or extended post big man of the Al Jeffereson class. With 50% of his shots coming as threes, and few FTs, Player B is certainly a three point bombing perimeter specialist. And yet TS% will tell you they are identical. Great stat.

I further submit to you:
Gm3: Actually watches the damn games guy:
thinks Player C: 54.9% TS% , is a better offensive player than either.

TS% is the exact opposite of an "advanced" stat. It obscures, not clarifies. Blurs together semi-related concepts, rather than sharpens the focus. You cannot deny TS% does in fact measure some overall measure of scoring efficiency. You can certainly argue the relevance of that particular piece of information on an individual basis.













P.S. Player A: Horford; Player B: Meeks; Player C: Cousins

that's still arguing a straw man, though.

 

[LPKingsFan]

IT is better than curry? I bet GS calls everyday trying to make that trade and we just hang up

Who said that?

Instigator here lol

Oh, right, carry on.