why ppl use ts% so much?

[230MVP]

TS% is a good stat but only if used in Context.

It doesnt tell you if a player is a good shooter, how effective that players offense is under pressure, and how "unstoppable" he is.

I'd much rather have a player who is extremely difficult to stop from scoring and has to be fouled to stop him ala Shaq then a player who can become fairly ineffective from the field when facing good defenses or under pressure but "usually" has a similar TS% thanks to FT's.

Ref's swallow their whistles sometimes or call the games differently and players who rely heavily on getting FT's will suffer then while players who are excellent at converting from the field (FG% or eFG%) wont suffer as much.

[Krodis]

On the OPS discussion, singles count for more than walks in OPS (because they affect slugging.) Beyond that, most stat-forward people acknowledge that OPS is flawed and use other stats. OPS is only meant to be simple estimation. TS% is more accurate than that at what it does. (although baseball is easier to encapsulate in stats than basketball, so OPS is still probably more accurate at describing a player in general).

[Nivek]

On the OPS discussion, singles count for more than walks in OPS (because they affect slugging.)

A walk is a base -- it counts the same as a single.

Beyond that, most stat-forward people acknowledge that OPS is flawed and use other stats. OPS is only meant to be simple estimation. TS% is more accurate than that at what it does. (although baseball is easier to encapsulate in stats than basketball, so OPS is still probably more accurate at describing a player in general).

The flaw in OPS is in using slugging percentage and putting it on equal footing with on-base percentage.

[Krodis]

Actually it's a bit more complicated than that. Even within slugging%, doubles are undervalued while triples and homers are over-valued, iirc.

[Rapcity_11]

^
That's true. Although I think homers and triples are valued correctly, just that doubles are undervalued. Also, you were still wrong about the walk vs. single in OPS

[Krodis]

Singles count towards both on base percentage and slugging percentage. Walks only count towards on base percentage. Singles count more in OPS.

[Rapcity_11]

Singles count towards both on base percentage and slugging percentage. Walks only count towards on base percentage. Singles count more in OPS.

That would be correct. My bad!

[Nivek]

Singles count towards both on base percentage and slugging percentage. Walks only count towards on base percentage. Singles count more in OPS.

Just had to go back and double check -- YOU ARE CORRECT. Slugging percentage is only bases from hits. One more reason why on-base percentage is a better stat.

[sixerswillrule]

The classic example is Chauncey Billups. He is a very low percentage shooter, .417 for his career. However, because he shoots a very large percentage of 3 point shots AND draws a lot of fouls, he is actually a very efficient shooter in terms of points created for each possession, ts% of .583. More efficient than, say, Tony Parker who shoots .498 (very good), but shoots 3's very rarely and is only average at drawing fouls for a ts% of .548. Assuming the multiplier for shooting fouls is reasonably consistent for both, that means that if Parker takes 100 shots, he will score about 55 points whereas if Billups takes 100 shots he will score 58 or more points on average -- where shots includes shots where a foul is called which the league doesn't count as a shot for some reason.

I think you meant to double those point totals.