Page 1 of 4

TS% vs FG%

Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 3:39 am
by Amare_1_Knicks
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?

Re: TS% vs FG%

Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 6:08 am
by mysticbb
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.

Re: TS% vs FG%

Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 9:59 pm
by sixerswillrule
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%.

Re: TS% vs FG%

Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2012 11:04 pm
by giberish
FG% is really meaningless unless you're comparing two guys who never shoot 3's.

eFG% vs TS% is a more interesting debate.

Re: TS% vs FG%

Posted: Wed Aug 1, 2012 6:05 pm
by Amare_1_Knicks
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?

Re: TS% vs FG%

Posted: Thu Aug 2, 2012 12:55 am
by sixerswillrule
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.

Re: TS% vs FG%

Posted: Thu Aug 2, 2012 1:09 am
by sixerswillrule
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

Re: TS% vs FG%

Posted: Thu Aug 2, 2012 2:45 am
by Amare_1_Knicks
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.

Re: TS% vs FG%

Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 10:18 am
by turk3d
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%.

Re: TS% vs FG%

Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 4:41 pm
by Nivek
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.

Re: TS% vs FG%

Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2012 6:51 am
by perun
if fg% was split into

2 pt fg% n 3 pt fg%.

there wouldnt be any of this confusion

Re: TS% vs FG%

Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2012 9:19 am
by turk3d
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.

Re: TS% vs FG%

Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2012 3:58 pm
by tsherkin
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.

Re: TS% vs FG%

Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2012 10:40 pm
by giberish
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).

Re: TS% vs FG%

Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 1:53 pm
by Pegasus1224
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.

Re: TS% vs FG%

Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 2:54 pm
by EvanZ
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

Re: TS% vs FG%

Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2012 7:33 am
by Hendrix
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.

Re: TS% vs FG%

Posted: Thu Nov 1, 2012 8:58 pm
by uncle_boogaloo
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.

Re: TS% vs FG%

Posted: Tue Nov 6, 2012 6:16 am
by Rapcity_11
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?

Re: TS% vs FG%

Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 9:41 pm
by Rapcity_11
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.