Kobe 06 vs Kobe 05: TS%

[therealbig3]

I came across something curious about Kobe's TS%.

05 Kobe: 27.6 ppg on .563 TS%, .433 FG% (20.1 FGA per game), .339 3pt% (5.9 3PA per game), .816 FT% (10.1 FTA per game)
06 Kobe: 35.4 ppg on .559 TS%, .450 FG% (27.2 FGA per game), .347 3pt% (6.5 3PA per game), .850 FT% (10.2 FTA per game)

How is Kobe's 06 TS% lower? He shot a higher overall percentage from the field, shot more 3's and hit them at a higher percentage, and he shot more FTs and hit them at a higher percentage. So why the decrease in TS%?

[ElGee]

I came across something curious about Kobe's TS%.

05 Kobe: 27.6 ppg on .563 TS%, .433 FG% (20.1 FGA per game), .339 3pt% (5.9 3PA per game), .816 FT% (10.1 FTA per game)
06 Kobe: 35.4 ppg on .559 TS%, .450 FG% (27.2 FGA per game), .347 3pt% (6.5 3PA per game), .850 FT% (10.2 FTA per game)

How is Kobe's 06 TS% lower? He shot a higher overall percentage from the field, shot more 3's and hit them at a higher percentage, and he shot more FTs and hit them at a higher percentage. So why the decrease in TS%?

Because of the increase in the least efficient type of attempt, 2-point shots.

[SideshowBob]

Although he shot more Free Throws and Threes, they were a smaller percentage of his total Field Goal Attempts. He was making those shots at a higher clip, but even more of his scoring was coming from 2 point shots, which offset the difference.

[qianlong]

intersting fact. i think it is a flaw of a stat if doing everything better gives you a worse result.

[Jimmy76]

intersting fact. i think it is a flaw of a stat if doing everything better gives you a worse result.

No you're just misunderstanding the stat.

Kobe genuinely didn't score more points on less possessions it went down because he took a ton more inefficient shots.

Lets say I take 20 shots a game one year, half 3's half 2's. I shoot 50% on the 2's and 40% on the 3's. On those 20 shots I'm getting 22 points.

Next year I'm shooting 50% from 3 still and 50% from 2 but now I'm only taking 2 3's and 18 2's. Now you're only getting 21 points on 20 shots despite better percentages.

Kobe increased the number of crappy efficiency shots he took so his efficiency took a small hit.

[qianlong]

intersting fact. i think it is a flaw of a stat if doing everything better gives you a worse result.

No you're just misunderstanding the stat.

Kobe genuinely didn't score more points on less possessions it went down because he took a ton more inefficient shots.

Lets say I take 20 shots a game one year, half 3's half 2's. I shoot 50% on the 2's and 40% on the 3's. On those 20 shots I'm getting 22 points.

Next year I'm shooting 50% from 3 still and 50% from 2 but now I'm only taking 2 3's and 18 2's. Now you're only getting 21 points on 20 shots despite better percentages.

Kobe increased the number of crappy efficiency shots he took so his efficiency took a small hit.

I am sorry but i understood the stat, the fact is that kobe did not reduce the number of 3s or ft, he increased the numer of 2 which we all agree are worse shots, but he shot them better, other than shooting basically the same on the others.
I am comparing two real things, you are comparing what happened with what could have happened.
You are saying if he was going to shot more threes instead of twos he would have been more efficient, but that was in a sense not feasible, it didn't happen, he was shooting more and doing a better job at it.
It is like saying that a player should only make layups and dunks, obviously they are better shots, but they are not feasible.
Year one is dominated by year two and if a stat ranks them in the opposite order, to me, that's a flaw

[ElGee]

Hmm - it really sounds like you aren't understanding the stat. TS% is basically points per shot. It accounts for 3 points counting 1.5x more than 2 points.

Free throws at 85% are really efficient ~ 1.7 points per trip.
3-pointers at 34% are mildly efficient ~1.0 point per trip.
2-points at 45% are the least efficient ~0.9 points per trip.

The stat is not gauging overall distribution of shooting quality. So I don't know what you mean by "year one is dominated by year two," when he took way more of the least efficient shot.

If Chauncey Billups shoots 40% from 2 and 40% from 3 and Kendrick Perkins 50% from 2 and 50% from 3 and 99% of Perkin's shots are 2's and 99% of Billups shots are 3's, who do you think will score more with the same number of shots? That's what TS% measures.

[kabstah]

I get what qianlong's saying.

Kobe in 2006 took more 2 pointers, more 3 pointers, and more FT's than in 2005. He also made 2 pointers, 3 pointers, and FT's at a higher rate in 2006 than in 2005. That's what "dominated" means in a game theory context.

The problem, of course, is that the growth in his number of scoring attempts outstripped the growth in his number of points scored, hence TS% is lower.

To put it more intuitively, shooting 2 pointers at a 43% clip is a bad thing in terms of efficiency. Shooting 2 pointers at 45%, while better, is still a bad thing. So while Kobe in 2006 did the good things slightly better and slightly more often, he did the bad things a lot more often. That's what drags down his overall efficiency.

[Paydro70]

I think the solution for quianlong's "problem" is very simple.
04-05 Usage Rate: 31.7
05-06 Usage Rate: 38.7

Putting up virtually the same TS% on that kind of crazy leap of usage is very impressive indeed.

[qianlong]

I think the solution for quianlong's "problem" is very simple.
04-05 Usage Rate: 31.7
05-06 Usage Rate: 38.7

Putting up virtually the same TS% on that kind of crazy leap of usage is very impressive indeed.

yeah that's the fact. when you are shooting soo much you have to take bad shots. and the fact that kobe was still hitting them is incredible.
What i meant was not that TS was wrong, it measures what it measures, what i meant was that it has limitations. Volume is sometimes undervalued from what i see here, for role players efficiency is the best thing, for the main player of the team is important but just one aspect of the offensive game, because they have to take bad shoots some times.

[GreenHat]

If you sell either hot dogs, hamburgers or pizza at your food stand for $2, $6 or $10 one year and sell 100 of each you make $1800 total through 300 sales. So thats an average of $6 a sale.

The next year you raise the price of everything a dollar. You now sell 300 $3 hot dogs, 150 $7 hamburgers and 120 $11 pizzas. You make $3270 but in 570 sales. So you only average $5.74 a sale.

So even though you sold more of each thing and each at higher prices your average per sale went down because you sold a lot more of the cheap stuff.

Hot dogs are 2 point baskets, Hamburgers are 3 pointers and pizza are FTs. The prices are the Shooting Percentages. How much money you make total is your PPG.

TS% is the average per sale.

It can go down even if everything else goes up if you sell a lot more hot dogs (or take a lot more 2 point shots).


This is actually an economic and/or scientific "thingy" that I can't remember the name of off hand.

It was dealing with multiple rates and even if you improve all the efficiency rates in all the categories you can still experience an overall decline if you have a greater percentage of the lower rated categories.

[qianlong]

If you sell either hot dogs, hamburgers or pizza at your food stand for $2, $6 or $10 one year and sell 100 of each you make $1800 total through 300 sales. So thats an average of $6 a sale.

The next year you raise the price of everything a dollar. You now sell 300 $3 hot dogs, 150 $7 hamburgers and 120 $11 pizzas. You make $3270 but in 570 sales. So you only average $5.74 a sale.

So even though you sold more of each thing and each at higher prices your average per sale went down because you sold a lot more of the cheap stuff.

Hot dogs are 2 point baskets, Hamburgers are 3 pointers and pizza are FTs. The prices are the Shooting Percentages. How much money you make total is your PPG.

TS% is the average per sale.

It can go down even if everything else goes up if you sell a lot more hot dogs (or take a lot more 2 point shots).


This is actually an economic and/or scientific "thingy" that I can't remember the name of off hand.

It was dealing with multiple rates and even if you improve all the efficiency rates in all the categories you can still experience an overall decline if you have a greater percentage of the lower rated categories.

its called decreasing marginal something depending on what you study.
Efficeincy is great but you have also to be efective if you have to gain 1000 $ (random number i don't know how expensive is there) you have to gain at least 1000$ even if you are doing it less efficiently.