K
Kingsguy881
Guest
Check www.databasebasketball.com . Once you pull up Mitch, his log is available from his first season with the Kings forward.
Talking point guard/Evans/etc. (split from Wolves grade thread)
- Thread starter Luv4Kings
- Start date
It seems to me that you've decided that Larry Bird and Oscar Robertson were more efficient scorers than Brad Miller without actually referring to numbers to bear that out. Were they more prolific scorers? Yes. Were they more entertaining scorers? Yes. Were they better ball handlers? Yes. Were they better at creating their own shot in clutch situations at the end of games? Shoot, most likely. But were they more efficient? For a very reasonable definition of efficiency, no, they were not.
One would hope that common sense would point out the sample size problems with Kwame Brown's 2003 3PT% and not try to spin 1 for 2 as a meaningful number.
I suppose it depends on your definition of "efficient". I think that points scored per shot attempt (fouled or not) is a very reasonable definition of efficiency (in fact I think it would be difficult to improve upon), and under that definition one can indeed argue that Martin is a more efficient scorer. You haven't yet provided a definition of "efficient", and from what I can tell you appear to be relying on your eyes to make that judgment for you. In fact, from what I quote below, it appears that you are conflating scoring efficiency with overall player value:
You'd be right in not doing any of those things. Of course, TS% does correlate reasonably well with other measures of value, but it only measures one component of a player's value - not even a player's entire offensive value, much less defensive value. (On a side note, teams with high shooting efficiencies tend to have poorer defensive stats, which jives with the common sense argument that the best offensive players are, in general, not the best defensive players.) I've never tried to spin it as anything else. It's a tool, but it's not the only tool. It only answers a limited question. But, given reasonable sample sizes, I trust it to answer that limited question accurately.
K
Kingsguy881
Guest
How can one compare Brad Miller to Larry Bird with a straight face while sober?
gunks
Hall of Famer
They're both white!
....Thats all I got.
About Reke platueing a la Mitch:
He doesnt even have a shot yet, and I say yet because he's working with Coachie. He will probably never be a great shooter, but even a decent shot will make him pretty much unguardable.
I imagine experience (his as well as those of his teammates) will cause Reke's assist numbers to go up as well.
24/5/6 is probably a worst case scenario for him. 27+/5+/7+ with great D and a high fg% is possible. At least IMO. And thems superstar numbers.
....Thats all I got.
About Reke platueing a la Mitch:
He doesnt even have a shot yet, and I say yet because he's working with Coachie. He will probably never be a great shooter, but even a decent shot will make him pretty much unguardable.
I imagine experience (his as well as those of his teammates) will cause Reke's assist numbers to go up as well.
24/5/6 is probably a worst case scenario for him. 27+/5+/7+ with great D and a high fg% is possible. At least IMO. And thems superstar numbers.
K
Kingsguy881
Guest
They both can't jump? I don't know but I can't see any way to even compare a top 10 NBA legend with a stiff.
K
Kingsguy881
Guest
You missed the obvious. They both come from Indiana.
lol.....French Lick and Kendalville. Maybe we should get Jerry Reynolds in on this comparison too, I'm sure we can come up with a stat that shows Reynolds was better at SOMETHING than Bird was......of wait, Reynolds never played....so that must mean he was more efficient at.......not playing?
I'm not really claiming that at all. I'm claiming that, if Brad Miller is a more efficient scorer than Larry Bird and Oscar Robertson, then I don't really care about scoring efficiency.
Very true. That was just to illustrate the point that you can make numbers say what you want them to say.
I'm just pointing out the fact that player efficiency numbers don't automatically translate into anything of worth on the court. The fact that this metric values Brad Miller over Larry Bird and Oscar Robertson means that you have to take the results with a grain of salt. And saying "Kevin Martin is the most efficient scorer in the NBA" doesn't really mean what you might want it to mean.
As a tool, maybe it has it's place, but I have to wonder about that when it tells you that Player A is a more efficient scorer than Player B, but doesn't take certain variables into consideration that you know have an effect on the efficiency of the two players. I'm going to guess that the primary reason Bill Cartwright is higher than Shaq is because he shot better from the free throw line, but if you consider the fact that Shaq shot five more free throws per game (and made one and a half more per game), you should realize that the free throw difference is more than cancelled out by volume.
All I'm saying is that the effectiveness of this metric has to be measured by its results. You can't just plug the numbers in and take the report for what it says. You have to make sure that what it's telling you really translates into the real world. Again, there's no substitute for common sense, and common sense tells you that Brad Miller can't hold a candle to Larry Bird's shadow as a scorer, so what difference does it make that there's some stat that says he's more efficient? What value does efficiency really have, if that's the case? I'm just not as sold on this stat as you are.
K
Kingsguy881
Guest
I like Jerry Reynolds. Of course, it might be because I'm the daughter of an Indiana farm boy and appreciate the sense of humor.
Jerry is a very nice person, VERY nice guy. Met him on a few occassions when I was a youth, and he was super polite and genuinely happy to meet anybody. I have no beef with him. The ginger next to him, however.....anyways, back to comparing Brad Miller and Larry Bird.
roasthawg
Starter
Another excellent post... I think some of what you're trying to say might be lost on some people that are less statistically inclined. Not that ts% is advanced mathematics by any stretch, just that some people struggle grasping any statistic that has lessor players ahead of better ones... it's tough to understand for some that this is not a per type of stat that attempts to take into account a player's TOTAL worth to his team. This is simply an efficiency stat that combines 3 point percentage, fg%, and ft% into one number.
Brad Miller is clearly a better free throw shooter than Dwayne Wade yet no one would argue that Dwayne Wade contributes more to his team at the stripe with his ability to get to the line over twice as often as Miller. True Shooting Percentage needs to be taken in the same context... some players are very efficient shooters but have problems generating shots (Steve Kerr) while others aren't very efficient shooters but have the ability to get off a shot anytime they want (AI). Martin happens to be a very good shooter who's able to use his quickness and height to get off a substantial amount of shot attempts... he's a very good scorer in the mold of a Reggie Miller. Whether or not that will help this team win more games upon his return remains to be seen.
I don't think it matters whether one is statistically inclined or not (I'm a stat geek, by the way; use to drive this board crazy with stats). It's not an issue of having lesser players ahead of better ones. It's saying that a player is more efficient because of this particular metric, when the metric doesn't take into consideration all of the variables that are pertinent to the matter. That's the first thing.
The second thing is that any metric that says specifically that Brad Miller is a more efficient scorer than Bird and Robertson needs to have its value considered before using it to prove that Kevin Martin is the most anything, anywhere. It's worth is limited. Efficiency, as it's defined by the formula in question, is really not all that valuable to the team.
Larry Bird, career: 50% from the field, 38% from outside, 89% from the line
(17,334 field goal attempts minus 1,727 three point attempts, 4,471 free throw attempts)
Brad Miller, career: 49% from the field, 32% from outside, 80% from the line
(6,413 field goal attempts minus 376 three point attempts, 3,007 free throw attempts)
I don't know what I'm missing there that's supposed to convince me that Brad Miller is a more efficient scorer. Maybe I'll see it when I watch them play? But no, I won't see it on the court, either. Which tells me that a player's scoring efficiency rating doesn't do me or my team much good.
roasthawg
Starter
With respect to Bird vs Miller the difference there is a result of Brad getting to the line with a higher frequency. Miller gets to the line on 4.1 times a game on 8.7 fga's vs Bird getting to the stripe 5.0 times a game on 19.3 fga's. Since Miller is a high percentage free throw shooter him going to the line a lot really helps boost his true shooting percentage.
But he doesn't go the line a lot. He only attempts 4 free throws a game. In comparison with his field goal attempts, it's a higher ratio, but that doesn't really mean anything in this particular instance. He doesn't get fouled more frequently, he doesn't draw more defenders, he doesn't take more contested shots. That's a false conclusion.
Which brings something else up that bothers me about this metric. You put the ball in the hands of the best free throw shooter at the end of the game when you have the lead, which increases his free throw attempts. But that doesn't take into consideration the fact that he's now shooting free throws that he didn't earn. He's not driving to the rim and getting fouled; he's getting put on the line purposely. Same basic concept with technical foul shots. These are shots that would potentially increase a player's scoring efficiency, using this metric, but really don't have anything to do with how efficient that player is with the ball in his hands.
I should add: I'm not trying to tear the whole thing down. I simply don't put as much stock into it as you and the Captain do. That's all. I don't really care that Kevin Martin is "the most efficient scorer in the NBA" because that metric doesn't necessarily translate into success on the court. Prime proof of that is the fact that Brad Miller is a more efficient scorer than Larry Bird. That automatically devalues this stat in my eyes.
Last edited:
The point is that he attempts a lot of free throws per shot attempt, relative to what Bird did. The whole entire point of a shooting efficiency metric like TS% is measure scoring in terms of possessions used. Obviously a team wants to maximize its points scored (and simultaneously minimize points allowed). As such, how many possessions a team gets is important, and how many points they score per possession is important. And once you shoot the ball, it either goes in (points, other team gets possession) or doesn't (no points, free rebound), and then it's time for the next possession. But every possession has to end - it ends with a shot or a turnover. Obviously, every team would prefer their possessions end in shots, and that those shots translate into points as often as possible. TS% is one step towards determining how effective a player is in scoring when he "chooses" to end a possession (by shooting).
There are a lot of things that translate into more points: creating extra possessions (rebounds, steals, forced TOs), shooting efficiently oneself, increasing the efficiency of other teammates (passing, setting picks, calling out double teams, etc.) - the last one being difficult to impossible to find in a box score.
The elephant in the room regarding the Bird/Miller question is that Bird used a lot more possessions than Miller. Maybe your objections come from the idea that had Bird been more selective, he might have been more efficient, and were Miller to shoot a lot more, he might be less efficient. You haven't expressed that specifically, so I'm not sure. But we don't know that for sure. That can only be tested by trying it - one possible approach would be encouraging players with higher TS% to shoot more often, and encouraging players with low TS% to be more selective, and trying to find an ideal balance point for the team as a whole. May not work, but it's an interesting idea.
Anyway, I don't want to sound like I'm proselytizing for TS%, as I've pointed out that it's by no means a be-all end-all stat. It's just that I don't want you to miss out on what it does tell us by focusing on what it doesn't do. (Oh, poop. I think I stole that from Jerry Reynolds!)
That is a possible quibble. However, the question of how much that boosts a players TS% is interesting to think about. My understanding of the 0.44 coefficient in TS% is that it attempts to account for not only FGAs when a player is fouled shooting but also for "possessions" when a player is fouled not shooting. It's a leaguewide, long-term average, though, so star players at the end of games will probably get more than their share. (Kevin Martin, on the other hand, has spent more time losing games than winning them, so he probably wouldn't see a boost!
)
roasthawg
Starter
Miller gets to the line almost twice as often as Bird did... once every 2.1 shot attempts for Brad compared to once every 3.9 shot attempts for Larry. That's just a fact based on simple math.
As for the end of the game thing free throw thing sure that can stat pad a guards numbers some but generally that's the benefit of being a good free throw shooter and ball handler.
No, it's not a fact. Larry Bird got to the line 4.98 times per game; Miller get's there 4.1 times per game. And keep in mind, you're comparing a center to a small forward who's known best for his jumpshot.
The ratio favors Miller, but that's it. He does not get to the line more than Larry Bird did. That's factually incorrect.
Which is something that true shooting percentage doesn't take into account, which is my point.
Edit: This is just Larry Bird, by the way. If I go compare Miller's numbers to Paul Pierce and Kobe and LeBron and D-Wade, the differences would be even more drastic. Or, if you want to go big man vs. big man, let's go with The Dream. Brad Miller is a more efficient scorer than Hakeem Olajuwon. I have a problem with the formula that's telling me this.
Last edited:
I don't care. In this particular case, that simply does not matter. And that's what I'm saying about looking at stats vs. watching the games. That ratio doesn't really tell you much about the two players and the impact they have on the game, and you don't know that unless you watch the game.
I only point this out because you mentioned earlier the difference between watching the game and seeing what you want to see, and seeing what's really happening. In this case, I think the stats (TS% in particular) are less important than what's actually happening on the court. It also bothers me that we're taking a ratio and weighting it so heavy; one player was the first option on his team, and shot more, while the other has always been, at best, the third or fourth option, and shot less.
I have no problem with any of this. Great points, all.
This might be a practical use of TS%, but I get the feeling you'd find your team scoring less points per possession as a result of taking the ball out of your best scorers' hands and giving it to lesser scorers, simply because they have a higher TS%. The primary reason they have a higher TS% is because they can be more selective. At least that's true in this case with Brad Miller. You'd also probably see the higher TS% start to come down.
And that's really the point, is that, if you take this analysis at face value, it's going to tell you to take the ball from Larry Bird and give it to Brad Miller.
I think I understand what it does do. I'm just saying that I put less stock in it than you do.
That is a possible quibble. However, the question of how much that boosts a players TS% is interesting to think about. My understanding of the 0.44 coefficient in TS% is that it attempts to account for not only FGAs when a player is fouled shooting but also for "possessions" when a player is fouled not shooting. It's a leaguewide, long-term average, though, so star players at the end of games will probably get more than their share. (Kevin Martin, on the other hand, has spent more time losing games than winning them, so he probably wouldn't see a boost!
Good point on Kevin Martin.
And I don't know that this would necessarily skew the numbers to a notable degree, but TS% doesn't specifically take this into consideration.
roasthawg
Starter
Like I said, ts% is a PERCENTAGE statistic... not a per game number. A greater percentage of Miller's shots result in him getting to the line than did Bird's. There is no fault in the formula... only in your understanding of the results.
Once again try to understand the free throw percentage statistic... Miller is a career .802 percent shooter while Wade shoots .772 from the line. If you look down a list of all-time leaders in free throw percentage Miller will be ahead of Wade... does this mean there's a problem with the ft% stat? No, it means that Miller is better than Wade when he does in fact get to the line. Wade however gets to the line far more often than Miller meaning that he makes a bigger contribution to his team... ft% does not measure contribution though, only how many shots you make per attempt. TS% is a percentage stat just like ft%... except it includes 3pt% and fg% as well.
K
Kingsguy881
Guest
I guess the bottom line is, after all the statistics and %'s and dissecting, would you rather have Bird or Miller?
roasthawg
Starter
Yeah, it's a no brainer... ts% is not meant to decide which player is better, not even close. PER is the stat that is supposed to calculate that (how good a job it does is open to debate). Bird is 18th while Miller is 123rd on that list.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/per_career.html
I understand the results. My point is simple: You're using a ratio, not a percentage. It's not factually accurate to say that Brad Miller gets to the line more than Larry Bird did. You have to add the qualifier: per shots attempted. And no one cares about that qualifier when you're comparing someone who took more than twice as many shots. That ratio becomes totally irrelevant as soon as Bird's free throw attempts per game surpass Miller's. If you're taking two players who take the same amount of shots and play the same amount of minutes per game, and there's a difference in their free throw attempt to field goal attempt ratio and TS%, then it becomes valid.
roasthawg
Starter
I give up... it's a percentage statistic, it's totally based on percentages. You seem to want to use it as something that it is not. If you understand ft%, fg%, and 3pt% then just think of ts% as a combination of those. It's really not that difficult.
Also, a ratio IS a percentage... if you make 1 shot out of every 2 attempts you are shooting 50%. You are confusing TOTALS with PERCENTAGES.
Last edited:
You're not listening. I know that it's a combination of those. What I'm saying is that this stat would have you take the ball out of Larry Bird's hands and give it to Brad Miller because he's a more efficient scorer.
And because of that, going back to what I said like four posts ago, I simply do not lend as much credence to the results of this stat as you do. It's not because I don't understand it; it's because I do.
roasthawg
Starter
No, this stat is not telling you who the best player to have the ball in his hands is. Take 3pt%... the Bulls had Michael Jordan and Steve Kerr. Kerr is a career .454% 3pt shooter to Jordan's .327%... is the 3pt% stat flawed? Is it telling you to give the ball to Kerr rather than Jordan with the game on the line? Most certainly not... Kerr can't get his own shot off while Jordan can at will. The stat is only telling us that Kerr made a better percentage of his 3pt attempts than does Jordan... it's a fact, not up for debate. Kerr was a more efficient 3pt shooter than was Jordan... not a better one.
Can anyone tell me what this thread was orginally about? I feel like I'm lost in never never land........
I think the thread has irretrievably gone off-topic. But that's how it goes sometimes...
roasthawg
Starter
I thought the title was basketball stats 101?Can anyone tell me what this thread was orginally about? I feel like I'm lost in never never land........
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
