Great Games in NBA History

[moofs]

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showth ... p?t=279121

Was wondering where LeBron's 61 pt game came in just now.


Well, it's real nass.

0.79 TS% isn't 0.845 TS%, but wow.

[GNgraduate]

TS% is not a stat..

They need to do away with that stat and just go with points per FGA

Because no one is shooting 80% from three.

He actually shot like 65%, that was his true shooting %.

[moofs]

TS% is not a stat..

They need to do away with that stat and just go with points per FGA

Because no one is shooting 80% from three.

He actually shot like 65%, that was his true shooting %.

Here you go:
viewtopic.php?f=344&p=25050772#p25050483
http://www.boxscoregeeks.com/articles/m ... efficiency

Via tsherkin:

You're basically talking about the data Hoop Data provides in that post.

TS still has value, it just requires context. You need to know shot volume and you need to know minutes and player role, but it provides a useful snapshot of a player's efficiency. A below-average TS is a bad thing, always; if you're under league-average, you need to be called upon to create your own shot less frequently, period. If you're around league average, you're probably not a great option for volume production. If you're above league-average, you're doing OK.

How you get there (FTAs, 3P shooting, high FG%, w/e) isn't so important, but there's a pretty clear trend where elite scorers tend to be at or above 55% TS if they're reasonably healthy. It's when you start getting picky about what the player is doing, how he could improve, how he could be defended, etc, etc, that's when the specifics of his scoring approach become relevant. How much is he assisted? What's league-average Assisted% at 10-15 feet for forwards? That kind of data becomes important.

TS% is still more useful than raw FG%, but like any stat, it requires accompanying context. It's well and good to say a player shoots 48% from 16-23 feet, but if he's taking 25% of his shots from there and still posting a TS of 49%, then he bloody sucks and is inefficient, and is a tool. TS% will effectively highlight that, regardless of how good a shooter he is above the foul line.

Meantime, the relevant components of TS are basically FTA/FGA, 3P%, FT%, and the various levels of FG% relating to the different zones on the floor (at the rim, < 10', 10-15', 16-23'). That data IS available.

It's mostly also called the Four Factors, and isn't new. Dean Oliver has been using eFG% (which accounts for 3P%), FTM/FGA (which accounts for FT% and DrawF), OREB% and TOV% to create an image of a player/team offensively for years now. FF analysis is pretty standard stuff off of RealGM.

So to answer your 65% "true shooting percentage", completely wrong.
Does that indicate anything about the insane shots he was hitting en route to the TS% he got? Well, no.
Was he efficient as all crap getting there regardless of shot difficulty and defensive talent set against him? Absolutely. And that's all it answers.

Side note, points per FGA is "PPS" and his was 61 / 33 = 1.85, which is nuts.

[Experience]

I just watch the games and I notice that threes don't always fall and infact they usually only fall about 35% of the time. Even lower when a team is losing. I've noticed about 33% when the team is down. Must be slightly more pressure when his team is down.

35% is 35%... yes, you get the extra 1 point. I understand that. I learned about all this in the early 90's. I was the first to know all about this stuff.

But 35% allows the opponents to gain confidence and even fast break. It also never gets the opponents in foul trouble.
Also most good teams in the playoffs shoot a much better 2 point % of about 52% That's consistent and doesn't allow teams to go on runs or come back.

see when you shoot threes, you will go into droughts and that will be the end of it. You'll lose. droughts and playoffs don't mix.