TS% vs FG%

Moderators: Doctor MJ, tsherkin, CellarDoor

Amare_1_Knicks
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,400
And1: 24
Joined: Aug 07, 2010

TS% vs FG% 

Post#1 » by Amare_1_Knicks » Wed Jul 25, 2012 3:39 am

Which one should be valued more? I was leaning towards TS% because it can more or less tell you what FG% doesn't.

For example, if you're comparing Kobe and Wade, Wade blows Kobe out of the water with his FG%. (Wade: '06-'12 49%FG ; Kobe: '06-'12 45%FG ) But when you look into TS% it gets much closer : 56% for Kobe to 57% for Wade.

Which would be a better indicator of efficiency on offense?
mysticbb
Banned User
Posts: 8,205
And1: 698
Joined: May 28, 2007
Contact:
   

Re: TS% vs FG% 

Post#2 » by mysticbb » Wed Jul 25, 2012 6:08 am

Both have value, but it obviously depends on what you want to know. If you want to know at what rate someone converts his field goal attempts, FG% is telling you that. If you want to know how efficient someone is converting his scoring opportunities, TS% will tell you that. TS% is a better indicator in terms of overall scoring impact than FG%. So, when you use PPG as one variable to get a grasp on the scoring volume, TS% should be used to determine efficiency.
User avatar
sixerswillrule
RealGM
Posts: 11,669
And1: 635
Joined: Jul 24, 2003
Location: DC Area

Re: TS% vs FG% 

Post#3 » by sixerswillrule » Wed Jul 25, 2012 9:59 pm

You don't even need to look as far as TS% to see that gap close between Wade and Kobe. eFG% shows that. Kobe shoots more threes than Wade. Threes are worth more than twos. FG% is a poor and generally useless stat because it combines shots that are worth different amounts of points. For scoring efficiency from the field, use eFG%. For overall scoring efficiency, use TS%.
"Trust the process" - Joel Embiid
giberish
Head Coach
Posts: 6,993
And1: 502
Joined: Mar 30, 2006
Location: Whereever you go - there you are

Re: TS% vs FG% 

Post#4 » by giberish » Wed Jul 25, 2012 11:04 pm

FG% is really meaningless unless you're comparing two guys who never shoot 3's.

eFG% vs TS% is a more interesting debate.
Amare_1_Knicks
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,400
And1: 24
Joined: Aug 07, 2010

Re: TS% vs FG% 

Post#5 » by Amare_1_Knicks » Wed Aug 1, 2012 6:05 pm

Ahh, I see.

But lets say you're comparing Michael Beasley vs. Nicolas Batum, purely on offense:

MB: .472%FG | .407%3pt | .772%FT( 2009 ) -- 13.9PPG
NB: .451%FG | .391%3pt | .836%FT( 2012 ) -- 13.9PPG

Beasley shot a better percentage from the field, and 3 point line, but Batum edged him out at the FT line. Beasley's TS% was .528, and Batum's .575. Is it worth it to value the FG% and 3pt% differential between the two( Though marginal ), even though Batum's TS% was higher?
User avatar
sixerswillrule
RealGM
Posts: 11,669
And1: 635
Joined: Jul 24, 2003
Location: DC Area

Re: TS% vs FG% 

Post#6 » by sixerswillrule » Thu Aug 2, 2012 12:55 am

This was already answered for you in viewtopic.php?f=344&t=1188160

Just looking at the each percentage doesn't tell you much. Beasley barely took threes that year. Less than 10 percent of his shots were threes. 43 percent of Batum's shots were threes. There is the difference. Batum scored more points with the shots he took.
"Trust the process" - Joel Embiid
User avatar
sixerswillrule
RealGM
Posts: 11,669
And1: 635
Joined: Jul 24, 2003
Location: DC Area

Re: TS% vs FG% 

Post#7 » by sixerswillrule » Thu Aug 2, 2012 1:09 am

Example:

Player A
50 for 100 from the field = 50%
4 for 10 from three = 40%
17 for 20 from FT = 85%

Player B
47 for 100 from the field = 47%
11 for 30 from three = 37%
32 for 40 from FT = 80%

Looking at percentages: Player A is clearly the better scorer

Reality: .556 TS% for player A vs. .582 for player B = player B is clearly the better scorer
"Trust the process" - Joel Embiid
Amare_1_Knicks
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,400
And1: 24
Joined: Aug 07, 2010

Re: TS% vs FG% 

Post#8 » by Amare_1_Knicks » Thu Aug 2, 2012 2:45 am

sixerswillrule wrote:This was already answered for you in viewtopic.php?f=344&t=1188160

Just looking at the each percentage doesn't tell you much. Beasley barely took threes that year. Less than 10 percent of his shots were threes. 43 percent of Batum's shots were threes. There is the difference. Batum scored more points with the shots he took.


My bad. I didn't even look at the shot attempts this time for some reason.
turk3d
RealGM
Posts: 31,747
And1: 523
Joined: Jan 30, 2007
Location: 51 Wins aint bad, 60+ is even better

Re: TS% vs FG% 

Post#9 » by turk3d » Tue Sep 18, 2012 10:18 am

When looking at bigs (most bigs) FG% is going to be what you're looking at since most don't shoot 3s. A good scoring big doesn't have to shoot 3s to be a good scorer in this instance. A high fg% will indicate that he's high percentage shooter (regardless of whether he's shooting most of them from underneath the basket). 60% fg% is pretty darn efficient which is what your top Centers can shoot. Your guards and SFs who shoot 3s at a pretty good clip will be the ones who have the higher TS%.
User avatar
Nivek
Head Coach
Posts: 7,406
And1: 956
Joined: Sep 29, 2010
Contact:
         

Re: TS% vs FG% 

Post#10 » by Nivek » Tue Sep 18, 2012 4:41 pm

I don't use TS% all that much. I generally use efg, which tells me about a player's shooting efficiency from the floor, and FT%, which tells me his proficiency from the line. TS% is a good combination of the two, but if I'm looking at a summary measure of efficiency, I prefer individual offensive rating, which also incorporates turnovers, assists and offensive rebounding.
"A lot of what we call talent is the desire to practice."
-- Malcolm Gladwell

Check out my blog about the Wizards, movies, writing, music, TV, sports, and whatever else comes to mind.
perun
Banned User
Posts: 16
And1: 0
Joined: Jun 08, 2012

Re: TS% vs FG% 

Post#11 » by perun » Thu Sep 20, 2012 6:51 am

if fg% was split into

2 pt fg% n 3 pt fg%.

there wouldnt be any of this confusion
turk3d
RealGM
Posts: 31,747
And1: 523
Joined: Jan 30, 2007
Location: 51 Wins aint bad, 60+ is even better

Re: TS% vs FG% 

Post#12 » by turk3d » Sun Sep 23, 2012 9:19 am

Check the boxscores. Most now give 3 pt shots made and shots attempted. Combine that with fga and fgm (you can do a quick calculation in your head) and you'll get a pretty good idea of what TS% or more importantly how the guy shot overall. TS% is nice if you want to do a comparison and it gives you just the one number to look at instead of having to do the calculations yourself.
tsherkin
Global Mod
Global Mod
Posts: 59,672
And1: 4,836
Joined: Oct 14, 2003
 

Re: TS% vs FG% 

Post#13 » by tsherkin » Sun Sep 23, 2012 3:58 pm

Another point that can be made is this:

Zone-specific FG% is very valuable, especially when you compare it against league average for a player's position (even more so if you slap a games- and minutes-played requirement on there). It can be very useful for looking at ability in a particular area. As a descriptor of overall scoring efficiency, it's entirely lacking, though. Creating more points per possession is valuable, and TS% (especially when you look at it relative to league average and positional average, as above) starts to give you a better picture.
DEAN GARRETT!!!
giberish
Head Coach
Posts: 6,993
And1: 502
Joined: Mar 30, 2006
Location: Whereever you go - there you are

Re: TS% vs FG% 

Post#14 » by giberish » Mon Sep 24, 2012 10:40 pm

perun wrote:if fg% was split into

2 pt fg% n 3 pt fg%.

there wouldnt be any of this confusion


It's annoying that box scores still list things as overall fg% and 3 pt fg%.

It's not a huge deal to subtract out the 3pt shots, but separating them out explicitly would be more informative at a glance (and overall fg% gets misused so often by casual fans/lazy sportswriters that it's presence should be minimized).
Pegasus1224
Ballboy
Posts: 5
And1: 0
Joined: Sep 12, 2012

Re: TS% vs FG% 

Post#15 » by Pegasus1224 » Thu Sep 27, 2012 1:53 pm

I personally prefer TS%, which adjusts for the value of a three point shot and free throw shooting - extremely important factors in valuing someone's efficiency. FG% only tells you their percentage of overall shots from the field but doesn't take into consideration that a three point shot results in more points than a two point shot, OR that free throws matter.

TS% is a pretty good "advanced" stat because it helps show the value of players like Dirk and other perimeter shooting big men, while showing that their overall efficiency isn't much worse than more traditional big men, if at all.
User avatar
EvanZ
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,860
And1: 351
Joined: Apr 06, 2011

Re: TS% vs FG% 

Post#16 » by EvanZ » Thu Sep 27, 2012 2:54 pm

turk3d wrote:Check the boxscores. Most now give 3 pt shots made and shots attempted. Combine that with fga and fgm (you can do a quick calculation in your head) and you'll get a pretty good idea of what TS% or more importantly how the guy shot overall. TS% is nice if you want to do a comparison and it gives you just the one number to look at instead of having to do the calculations yourself.


Listen to the man. :D
Harrison Barnes is still garbage.

NBAWOWY.com
Find statistics of your favorite team with any arbitrary combination of players on or off the court.
User avatar
Hendrix
RealGM
Posts: 16,497
And1: 3,336
Joined: May 30, 2007
Location: London, Ontario

Re: TS% vs FG% 

Post#17 » by Hendrix » Tue Oct 30, 2012 7:33 am

I would say FG% has just about zero value. I'm quite suprised how many people fail to grasp basic math, and utilize this stat.

EFG% has more value, but is still extremly flawed, and I can't imagine ever using it.

TS% is flawed, but captures the scoring efficeincy well enough, and is the best option we have. It would be best if someone tracked each individual 'and 1', but an estimate atleast returns a reasonably accurate picture of scoring efficiency.
oak2455 wrote:Do understand English???
uncle_boogaloo
Ballboy
Posts: 25
And1: 0
Joined: Jan 05, 2012

Re: TS% vs FG% 

Post#18 » by uncle_boogaloo » Thu Nov 1, 2012 8:58 pm

TS% in my opinion is pretty much the same as PPP...the formula may vary depending on whether FT's are weighted .5 or .44, and whether or not turnovers are counted, but generally TS% should be highly correlated with PPP.

I agree FG% is pretty useless. At the very least use eFG% instead.
User avatar
Rapcity_11
General Manager
Posts: 9,557
And1: 1,584
Joined: Jul 26, 2006
     

Re: TS% vs FG% 

Post#19 » by Rapcity_11 » Tue Nov 6, 2012 6:16 am

Hendrix wrote:I would say FG% has just about zero value. I'm quite suprised how many people fail to grasp basic math, and utilize this stat.

EFG% has more value, but is still extremly flawed, and I can't imagine ever using it.

TS% is flawed, but captures the scoring efficeincy well enough, and is the best option we have. It would be best if someone tracked each individual 'and 1', but an estimate atleast returns a reasonably accurate picture of scoring efficiency.


How is EFG% flawed?
User avatar
Rapcity_11
General Manager
Posts: 9,557
And1: 1,584
Joined: Jul 26, 2006
     

Re: TS% vs FG% 

Post#20 » by Rapcity_11 » Tue Nov 20, 2012 9:41 pm

fallacy wrote:I just told you in my post. Having a raw, unadjusted, percentage of shots made is valuable. That would be like saying that raw assists and raw rebounds are worthless stats because we have ast% and reb%


That doesn't explain the value FG%. You just described what it measures. And called it valuable.

Raw rebounds are useless.

AST% and raw assists aren't really the same thing so they both have use. If I need to explain I can.

Return to Statistical Analysis