Win / Loss TS% Splits

[DanTown8587]

REALLY doesn't matter when you're talking about low volume players and if they help your basketball team.

It really DOES matter. Every single shot matters in a game.

Kirk's 7 shots a game are no less valuable or not to the scoreboard than random 7 shots of Butler, Rose or Gasol.

Like I told Strat, are we to excuse Noah and Snell as well? That's 16 shots a game now we shouldn't care about because they are low volume and not 'in there to score'.

You can't keep excusing the weak points of all your players as not mattering or you just end up with a team with a bunch of flaws.

If Kirk made an extra 10% of his shots and had very good numbers, he'd give the team 1.4 points a game, are we seriously wasting all this time arguing to get an extra 1.4 points?

[Rerisen]

Player's have roles, I don't know what to tell you and some of them don't have the role to score. If you have problem with the offense, going after Kirk Hinrich's TS% isn't going to fix it.

I'm not 'going after it' as the main thing wrong in the team or anything. But his efficiency still matters, Strat is trying to write it off completely.

Kirk's offensive possessions are no less important than say Brook's defensive possessions. And that both those things are poor, definitely makes us a worse team.

I'd say the same thing about Noah's efficiency too. He shoots less than Kirk but it hurts that he only scores at .479 TS this year as opposed to .579% in 2011.

It's not like we are some offensive juggernaut here led by Kobe and Shaq, with Kirk just in a Fisher role. Yeah he would be fine for that, but we need all that help we can get here. Our offense is only 16th in TS% and I really don't see Rose fixing that all by himself.

It's not a matter of holding Kirk individually to account, but rather holding everyone on the team to account for both sides of their game. If every player shored up their weakest point, just a little, equal to Kirk shoring up his TS% to say .540, the end result would be quite large. Probably 3-5 points a game.

So yeah we can easily excuse each player in one specific area as small potatoes overall, and say oh 1 less rebound doesn't matter, 1 free blow by Aaron gives up a game doesn't matter, 1 less point from shooting worse doesn't matter, 1 extra turnover from Rose doesn't matter, but when we are dealing with values that are well below league average, such as Kirk's efficiency, I don't think we should be pooh poohing or giving free passes for such subpar performance. That's how you get better, a little bit here a little bit there.

[musiqsoulchild]

It's interesting that while Rose's overall TS% is .497, he's been above .540 in more than half of his games. I guess it's a skewed average because of a really bad slump.

Inconsistent is more the reason for it in my opinion.

[DanTown8587]

Player's have roles, I don't know what to tell you and some of them don't have the role to score. If you have problem with the offense, going after Kirk Hinrich's TS% isn't going to fix it.

I'm not 'going after it' as the main thing wrong in the team or anything. But his efficiency still matters, Strat is trying to write it off completely.

Kirk's offensive possessions are no less important than say Brook's defensive possessions. And that both those things are poor, definitely makes us a worse team.

I'd say the same thing about Noah's efficiency too. He shoots less than Kirk but it hurts that he only scores at .479 TS this year as opposed to .579% in 2011.

It's not like we are some offensive juggernaut here led by Kobe and Shaq, with Kirk just in a Fisher role. Yeah he would be fine for that, but we need all that help we can get here. Our offense is only 16th in TS% and I really don't see Rose fixing that all by himself.

It's not a matter of holding Kirk individually to account, but rather holding everyone on the team to account for both sides of their game. If every player shored up their weakest point, just a little, equal to Kirk shoring up his TS% to say .540, the end result would be quite large. Probably 3-5 points a game.

So yeah we can easily excuse each player in one specific area as small potatoes overall, and say oh 1 less rebound doesn't matter, 1 free blow by Aaron gives up a game doesn't matter, 1 less point from shooting worse doesn't matter, 1 extra turnover from Rose doesn't matter, but when we are dealing with values that are well below league average, such as Kirk's efficiency, I don't think we should be pooh poohing or giving free passes for such subpar performance. That's how you get better, a little bit here a little bit there.

I don't excuse Kirk for his play; I say that Kirk has more positives than Aaron which is why he's ahead of him in the rotation and plays more minutes even though he has a lower TS%. And my point is that Kirk's TS% doesn't matter when you ask him what he brings to the team because his low volume means that no matter how efficient he scores, it's not a good measure of whether or not he should play.

The Bulls have a better rating with Kirk than without, care to explain how Kirk and his awful TS% don't cripple the team if it's so important?

[Rerisen]

The Bulls have a better rating with Kirk than without, care to explain how Kirk and his awful TS% don't cripple the team if it's so important?

Our other PGs have been even worse. And where did I say he 'cripples' the team? Go read the get rid of Hinrich thread, I defended playing him in it. But I do think his efficiency is terrible and should be better. This is an argument about principle not about how terrible Hinrich is or how he's the thing holding the team back alone.

----

Let's do a little thought experiment. If I said Derrick Rose could finish the year at .545 TS% or .520 TS%, would people say that difference could matter to our winning or not?

If the answer is yes, then so does Hinrich's efficiency. How does this correlate?

Well Derrick Rose shoots about 20 shots per 36, and he might actually play 36 in the playoffs. The two numbers above are merely the difference for the year between Rose shooting .555 TS% on his last 7 shots each game - his MVP year efficiency, vs shooting .488 TS% on his last 7 shots like Kirk Hinrich does on his 7 nightly shots. While spotting Derrick league average type .540 TS% on his first 13 shots a night. So if the results of 7 shots a night can matter for Derrick, they matter for Kirk.

We can talk who has what role, but at the end of the game the scoreboard does not care who took the shots. Only what team scored more.

If a player isn't some Ben Wallace level defender, I'm not going to be satisfied with sub .500 TS% from anyone. Whether its Kirk, Snell, Noah, Rip Hamilton, whoever, and certainly not Derrick.

[Stratmaster]

Kirk Hinrich's TS% , in his role, has absolutely nothing to do with his value to the Bulls. Nada. Zip. If you can't see that I am sorry.

And I'm sorry you can't see past making excuses for a player.

Every player has to be responsible for every part of the game if we are to honestly evaluate them.

I don't know why anyone argues against this.

It's like if Mirotic comes out and sucks on defense all game and gives up 10 easy points to his man, and someone said at the end of the game: "It's not Mirotic's job to play defense, he's just a rookie here to space the floor."

Isn't it obvious what a bad argument that is? Well its no better to make for Kirk's offense when he plays 19 minutes and can't score a single point like he didn't vs Washington. Yes, that hurts the team.

What is the cutoff point we should care about Kirk's efficiency. Is it ok if his TS% is .400? Who cares since he only takes 7 shots a game? What is the cutoff number of shots we should care about a player's efficiency? 8 shots a game? 10 shots a game? Currently Mirotic, Snell and Noah all shoot less shots than Kirk, I guess we shouldn't care about any of their efficiencies either, because hey its probably only 1 point every 3 games difference. And Noah's 'job' isn't to score either. Not really Snell either, he's just an emergency guy.

Then you realize that Noah and Snell both have crappy efficiency too this year, add it to Kirk, and now suddenly the impact is getting greater. Now we are up to 16 shots a game that we don't care about the results!

How about Dunleavy, he only shoots .5 shots more than Hinrich, should we care about his efficiency or not? Oh, he's our shooter so we should. But does that mean we shouldn't care about his defense instead then, since defense isn't Mike's job?

What you don't realize is if we gave every player a free pass, even just for their first 7 shots, these single points here or there, over the whole team, would quickly add up to several points a game. And several points a game would be the difference between a handful more or less wins at the end of the year.

If you have a whole team of player's that you are excusing entire parts of the game as 'not being their job' then you just end up with a team that isn't that great and lacks 2 way play.

Hinrich is no longer good enough at defense or anything else, to be excusing his terrible offense as not mattering. No more than its ok to excuse Aaron Brooks for his terrible defense.

I can point out deficiencies in every player. If you are asking me do I wish Hinrich was more of an offensive threat, of course. Do I wish Brooks was smarter? Of course. Do I wish Brooks and Rose didn't turn over the ball so much? Of course. Do they cost the Bulls more points doing that than Hinrich does with his TS%? Of course. Do I wish Mirotic could play better defense? Of course. Do I wish Pau could play any defense? Of course. But no one is calling for them to hang up their sneakers; because all you and some others seem to understand is offense, and you prove it every time you start quoting TS% as a stat to judge players like Hinrich by.

[Stratmaster]

r.

REALLY doesn't matter when you're talking about low volume players and if they help your basketball team.

It really DOES matter. Every single shot matters in a game.

Kirk's 7 shots a game are no less valuable or not to the scoreboard than random 7 shots of Butler, Rose or Gasol.

Like I told Strat, are we to excuse Noah and Snell as well? That's 16 shots a game now we shouldn't care about because they are low volume and not 'in there to score'.

You can't keep excusing the weak points of all your players as not mattering or you just end up with a team with a bunch of flaws.

Snell was drafted to be a shooter, so no, you can't excuse poor shooting from him. Yes, of course you excuse Noah for not being an efficient scorer. He is a perfect example of how stupid it is to keep hammering Hinrich's efficiency. Have you seen his freaking shot? You don't think the Bulls saw his shot before drafting him? Do you think he made the all-star team or all-NBA team last season because of his scoring? So i guess maybe there can be value in a player who doesn't score, eh?

See, there are many facets to this basketball thing you have been watching "all these years". You know, dribbling, and passing, and defense, and rebounding and stuff...

[Rerisen]

But no one is calling for them to hang up their sneakers; because all you and some others seem to understand is offense, and you prove it every time you start quoting TS% as a stat to judge players like Hinrich by.

No, that is a strawman. People quote TS% to show his scoring efficiency and it gets talked about frequently because its really bad. I don't think anyone is under the illusion it describes his defense, passing or anything else.

If all I understood was offense, I wouldn't be calling for Taj Gibson in the starting lineup or to break up the Noah and Gasol pairing. I wouldn't be calling out the dangers of relying on Aaron Brooks in the playoffs for offense.

The way Brooks has been playing of late, he is a lot worse than Kirk, but that doesn't mean Hinrich has no flaws.

Some of us actually care about the offense and defense of all our players.

[Rerisen]

Yes, of course you excuse Noah for not being an efficient scorer. He is a perfect example of how stupid it is to keep hammering Hinrich's efficiency. Have you seen his freaking shot? You don't think the Bulls saw his shot before drafting him? Do you think he made the all-star team or all-NBA team last season because of his scoring? So i guess maybe there can be value in a player who doesn't score, eh?

And he had even more value when he was scoring better. Which has little to do with his shot, everything to do with his injury. Noah has a .548 career TS%, decent, and .579 TS in 2011, excellent.

Because while he only took a few shots, he took smart high efficient shots. And that's what Hinrich should be doing.

He needs to stop the silly pull ups off the dribble, in transition, and the crossover step backs into jumpers, like its 2007. But well that's one of his other weaker areas, random bonehead decision making.

[Stratmaster]

But no one is calling for them to hang up their sneakers; because all you and some others seem to understand is offense, and you prove it every time you start quoting TS% as a stat to judge players like Hinrich by.

No, that is a strawman. People quote TS% to show his scoring efficiency and it gets talked about frequently, because its really bad. I don't think anyone is under the illusion it describes his defense, passing or anything else.

And if all I understood was offense, I wouldn't be calling for Taj Gibson in the starting lineup or to break up the Noah and Gasol pairing. I wouldn't be calling out the dangers of relying on Aaron Brooks in the playoffs for offense.

The way Brooks has been playing of late, he is a lot worse than Kirk, but that doesn't mean Hinrich has no flaws.

Well, we agree on Brooks. And, to be clear, I have never, ever read a post on this board claiming Hinrich had no flaws. I have never, ever, read a post on here even claiming Hinrich should be a starter. I can't even recall a post on here discussing Hinrich's usage that didn't state he needs to see LESS minutes, including my own. That is why it seems so completely stupid to see people on hear quoting is TS% and obsessing over Hinrich. It used to be the Snell fans because they resented that Snell wasn't getting more minutes. I think we can all pretty much agree they were off base. Then it was the Brooks fans. I think we both just agreed Brooks does more harm than good.

Hinrich wouldn't be playing as many minutes as he has if not for injuries. Meaning he wouldn't even be taking 7 shots per game. Meaning his TS% would become less important than it already is, if that is possible. The constant hammering on Hinrich is just stupid, period. As stupid as Brooks on-court decision making. As stupid as a couple of the oldest guys on the team having to play some of the highest minutes on the team because of injuries to others, and then being called out because they are out of gas and play weakly.

[Rerisen]

We aren't obsessing over his TS% in this thread, rather you just started fighting tooth and nail against the notion that every player's offense matters to winning.

If the points count on the scoreboard then they matter.