True Shooting Percentage =/= Offensive Efficiency

[Don Draper]

I keep seeing people using TS% as if it is the only thing that determines offensive efficiency, and it doesn't. That along with every other offensive stat (offensive rebs, assists, and turnovers) determines offensive efficiency, and it's called offensive rating (ORtg). So please refrain from labeling a players efficient based solely on their TS% b/c that isn't the case. /rant

http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/glossary.html#ts_pct
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offensive_rating

If you want to say "not equal" the generally accepted notation is:

!=

while you would have been correct if you could have put the slash through the equal sign, I'd have to say that
=/= != not equal

ah, math jokes.

That's more of a computer programming joke but I digress.

[Don Draper]

I don't even like saying scoring efficiency either. Because offensive rating is actually points produced per 100 possessions which is by definition scoring efficiency. It's really just shooting efficiency. Regardless, I understand what you are saying.

No it's not. Points produced is a stat that assigns values to each aspect of offensive production (offensive rebounds, fg's, ft;s, assists) and then adds them up. The total of those values for every player on the team will equal how much the team scored in the game. Points produced has other factors then scoring in it.

TS% is fine for deminstrating scoring efficeincy. I believe in uses an estimate for the amount of "and 1's" a player gets instead of hand tracking each individual player but overall it's a pretty good representation. ORTG's by no means perfect either as it uses estimates as well.

Sorry but you are incorrect. I'm not talking about Dave Berri's formula. I'm talking about ORtg which by definition is points produced by 100 possessions. And no it doesn't assign arbitrary weights to stats (like PER and others)

It's not perfect but it is far more complete.

[doctorfunk]

True shooting % measures shooting efficiency, tricky concept, I know, And it's pretty much the perfect, uncontroversial stat for what it does, while offensive rating is certainly not the perfect stat for what it does.

exactly

you'd think random pf is more efficient than Brent Barry or Ray Allen until you look TS%

you learn to appreciate guys like Miller, Allen, Barry, Nash, Stockton when you look at their
TS% it shows what is impossible to tell from FT% FG% 3PT% listed alone, in fact that's the only
advanced stat I give **** about Ortg, +/-, PER are all obsolete to me

[droponov]

Individual scoring = points scored by the player

Individual Off. Rating is not points scored by the player per possession (Oliver's ORtg). It includes stuff that has nothing to do with the player scoring. It's not by definition scoring efficiency, it measures others contributions by the individual.

TS% measures all the scoring (shooting from the field + free throws) and nothing else -> scoring efficiency. If one wants to measure the efficiency of individual scoring, it's a much proper metric than Off. Rtg.

It's individual points produced (for the team) and yes it is the same rating Oliver used. Look in the book. You can tell because it includes variants of OREB, AST, and TOV.

It's not a good way of measuring individual scoring. An inefficient scorer, even a non-scorer, can have a relatively high Off. Rtg.

If TS% really measured that it would include turnovers since they take away a chance to score.

So? A turnover is a possession that doesn't end with an attempt to score. I want scoring eff. metrics to tell me how efficient are players using their possessions that finish with an attempt to score. Scoring is scoring. I mean, if a guy goes 0/100 am I going to call him an efficient scorer just because he rebounds his own miss every time and keeps the possession alive?

No, I'm going to call him an extremely inefficient scorer + an extraordinary off. rebounder. It matters because it tells me how to use him properly.

[droponov]

I don't even like saying scoring efficiency either. Because offensive rating is actually points produced per 100 possessions which is by definition scoring efficiency. It's really just shooting efficiency. Regardless, I understand what you are saying.

No it's not. Points produced is a stat that assigns values to each aspect of offensive production (offensive rebounds, fg's, ft;s, assists) and then adds them up. The total of those values for every player on the team will equal how much the team scored in the game. Points produced has other factors then scoring in it.

TS% is fine for deminstrating scoring efficeincy. I believe in uses an estimate for the amount of "and 1's" a player gets instead of hand tracking each individual player but overall it's a pretty good representation. ORTG's by no means perfect either as it uses estimates as well.

Sorry but you are incorrect. I'm not talking about Dave Berri's formula. I'm talking about ORtg which by definition is points produced by 100 possessions. And no it doesn't assign arbitrary weights to stats (like PER and others)

It's not perfect but it is far more complete.

Are you sure you aren't confusing the two ORtg? Are you sure you aren't confusing "produced" and "scored"? Because it's 2 different things.

Yeah, as he says, the ORtg for players is a linear weighted formula.

[Don Draper]

Are you sure you aren't confusing the two ORtg? Are you sure you aren't confusing "produced" and "scored"? Because it's 2 different things.

Yeah, as he says, the ORtg for players is a linear weighted formula.

I think for team ORtg is points scored, for individual is points produced. It makes sense if you think about it.

[Sedale Threatt]

All I know is that Vladimir Radmanovic ranked in the top 10 in ORtg with the Lakers, which pretty much permanently f'd that stat for me. I know, I know -- he spread the floor. Name me one other thing he did even even poorly. Dribble, create, score, shoot, anything.

[Don Draper]

True shooting % measures shooting efficiency, tricky concept, I know, And it's pretty much the perfect, uncontroversial stat for what it does, while offensive rating is certainly not the perfect stat for what it does.

exactly

you'd think random pf is more efficient than Brent Barry or Ray Allen until you look TS%

you learn to appreciate guys like Miller, Allen, Barry, Nash, Stockton when you look at their
TS% it shows what is impossible to tell from FT% FG% 3PT% listed alone, in fact that's the only
advanced stat I give **** about Ortg, +/-, PER are all obsolete to me

See what I mean?

[Hendrix]

I don't even like saying scoring efficiency either. Because offensive rating is actually points produced per 100 possessions which is by definition scoring efficiency. It's really just shooting efficiency. Regardless, I understand what you are saying.

No it's not. Points produced is a stat that assigns values to each aspect of offensive production (offensive rebounds, fg's, ft;s, assists) and then adds them up. The total of those values for every player on the team will equal how much the team scored in the game. Points produced has other factors then scoring in it.

TS% is fine for deminstrating scoring efficeincy. I believe in uses an estimate for the amount of "and 1's" a player gets instead of hand tracking each individual player but overall it's a pretty good representation. ORTG's by no means perfect either as it uses estimates as well.

Sorry but you are incorrect. I'm not talking about Dave Berri's formula. I'm talking about ORtg which by definition is points produced by 100 possessions. And no it doesn't assign arbitrary weights to stats (like PER and others)

It's not perfect but it is far more complete.

No. I'm talking about Dean Olivers formula for points produced. Which is who you linked to in your OP.

Points Produced=(FG Part + AST Part + FT Part) x (1- (TMOR÷TMScPoss) x TMORweight x TMPlay%) + OR part, where FG Part is 2x(FGM+ ½ x FG3M) x (1- ½ x (PTS-FTM÷2xFGA x q ast ); AST Part is 2 x [TMFGM-FGM = ½ (TMFG3M-FG3m)] ÷ (TMFGM-FGM) x ½ x [(TMPTS-TMFTM)-(PTS-FTM)] ÷ 2 x (TMFGA-FGA) x AST; FT Part is [1-(1-FT%) 2 ] x 0.4 FTA; and, OR Part is OR x TMOR weight x TMPlay% x TMPTS ÷ TMFGM + [1-(1-TMFT%) 2 ] x 0.4 x TMFTA.

[Don Draper]

All I know is that Vladimir Radmanovic ranked in the top 10 in ORtg with the Lakers, which pretty much permanently f'd that stat for me. I know, I know -- he spread the floor. Name me one other thing he did even even poorly. Dribble, create, score, shoot, anything.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/radmavl01.html

His highest season he was at 113 but his usage was 16% which is nothing special. Let me add that as USG% increases, efficiency usually decreases.

Look at Kobe in 05-06
ORtg 114
USG% 38.7
MPG 41.0

That is absurd production. Even though he had basically the same ORtg numbers look at how heavily the Lakers relied on his scoring and how many minutes he played. People don't realize how good Kobe was that year.

[Don Draper]

No. I'm talking about Dean Olivers formula for points produced. Which is who you linked to in your OP.

Points Produced=(FG Part + AST Part + FT Part) x (1- (TMOR÷TMScPoss) x TMORweight x TMPlay%) + OR part, where FG Part is 2x(FGM+ ½ x FG3M) x (1- ½ x (PTS-FTM÷2xFGA x q ast ); AST Part is 2 x [TMFGM-FGM = ½ (TMFG3M-FG3m)] ÷ (TMFGM-FGM) x ½ x [(TMPTS-TMFTM)-(PTS-FTM)] ÷ 2 x (TMFGA-FGA) x AST; FT Part is [1-(1-FT%) 2 ] x 0.4 FTA; and, OR Part is OR x TMOR weight x TMPlay% x TMPTS ÷ TMFGM + [1-(1-TMFT%) 2 ] x 0.4 x TMFTA.

I see what you are saying. The weights you see are factoring how the the team performed. Those are similar to OREB% and AST%. When I talk of weights, I mean arbitrary weights (or multipliers) like the ones used in PER and NBA Eff. But yes you are right, those are weights but they are derived from actual data rather than something arbitrary.

[dogrufus]

People don't realize how good Kobe was that year.

Yes, if only those block-headed philistines would take notice that Kobe's Ortg was as high as the great Radmanovic then he would finally be known as a good player.

[Vinsanity420]

Only Team O Rating is useful... individual O Rating is no good... it simply isn't good enough to measure what an individual brings to offense... or you would think Chris Paul is GOAT ( great player, but still a ridiculous assertion... his 128 O Rating is like WOAH). It's not much better than using Win Shares.

TS% is basically Points Per Shot. There's very little to argue against that. It doesn't determine the better scorer, necessarily, but it's the easiest way to determine shooting efficiency.

[Don Draper]

People don't realize how good Kobe was that year.

Yes, if only those block-headed philistines would take notice that Kobe's Ortg was as high as the great Radmanovic then he would finally be known as a good player.

I like how you edited to quote to exclude the analysis. You're so intelligent.

Edit: Are you really trying to say Kobe wasn't a beast that year, regardless of stats?

[Don Draper]

Only Team O Rating is useful... individual O Rating is no good... it simply isn't good enough to measure what an individual brings to offense... or you would think Chris Paul is GOAT ( great player, but still a ridiculous assertion... his 128 O Rating is like WOAH). It's not much better than using Win Shares.

TS% is basically Points Per Shot. There's very little to argue against that. It doesn't determine the better scorer, necessarily, but it's the easiest way to determine shooting efficiency.

Individual offensive rating is based on the same concept as team offensive rating (points per 100 possessions) they just use different formulas. Not really sure what you are saying

[dogrufus]

People don't realize how good Kobe was that year.

Yes, if only those block-headed philistines would take notice that Kobe's Ortg was as high as the great Radmanovic then he would finally be known as a good player.

I like how you edited to quote to exclude the analysis. You're so intelligent.

Edit: Are you really trying to say Kobe wasn't a beast that year, regardless of stats?

No, I'm simply saying that Kobe's value that year is already well known because of other, more useful stats than Ortg. Ortg is just too confoundable and imprecise to mean all that much.

[Nivek]

I'm glad there are folks who don't let facts get in the way of firm assertions.

Individual ortg is a terrific measure of overall offensive EFFICIENCY. In fact, it's the best overall measure of a player's efficiency on the offensive end. It does not say who the best scorer is. It doesn't say who the "best" offensive player is. It tells you how often a guy produces points for his team compared to how many possessions that guy "uses."

It's not noisy. It's not confoundable. It's not imprecise. It's the opposite of those things.

It does not explain everything. Context still matters. A great offensive player surrounded by a bunch of stumblebums will probably have a lower ortg because defensive attention will logically focus on that great player. Way it goes. Lower usage players often have higher ortg because they're being highly selective -- attempting to score only when they have a high likelihood of succeeding. A player's ortg will typically decrease as his usg% increases. That kind of information needs to considered when looking at ortg. Ortg by itself tells us is how efficient the guy is overall. When looked at in combination with usg%, we get a good sense of a guy's overall offensive ability and role with the team.

If you want to talk about a "problem" area of DeanO's work, it's the other end of the floor -- the individual drtg. Those ratings, which are based on a series of estimates from the box score, are imprecise, confoundable and noisy. Which Dean readily acknowledges. Drtg is probably the best defensive information we're going to be able to derive from the box score, and Dean deserves tons of credit for giving it a try.

Where Dean's approach on the defensive end gets interesting is with hand tracking (which I've been doing). Drtg is robust when combined with hand tracking of the forced misses and forced turnovers and free throws related to fouls a player commits. Combine those with defensive rebounds and steals, and you get excellent information into a player's defensive abilities. Still imperfect because there are aspects of defense beyond forcing misses and turnovers -- stuff like shot prevention and ball denial. But it's a HUGE improvement on what we have available now.

[Don Draper]

Yes, if only those block-headed philistines would take notice that Kobe's Ortg was as high as the great Radmanovic then he would finally be known as a good player.

I like how you edited to quote to exclude the analysis. You're so intelligent.

Edit: Are you really trying to say Kobe wasn't a beast that year, regardless of stats?

No, I'm simply saying that Kobe's value that year is already well known because of other, more useful stats than Ortg. Ortg is just too confoundable and imprecise to mean all that much.

What are you talking about? ORtg is not confoundable at all . It's based on the same principles of team offensive rating. Is it 100% exact? Of course not, but it is still the most complete individual offensive metric to date. I suggest you read up on it (and I'm not trying be condescending, its very interesting)

[bert stein]

No, I'm simply saying that Kobe's value that year is already well known because of other, more useful stats than Ortg. Ortg is just too confoundable and imprecise to mean all that much.

What are you talking about? ORtg is not confoundable at all . It's based on the same principles of team offensive rating. Is it 100% exact? Of course not, but it is still the most complete individual offensive metric to date. I suggest you read up on it (and I'm not trying be condescending, its very interesting)

individual ortg is very much confounded, in the sense that often captures teammate's contributions to offense that are captured by individual box stats. team ortg, however, internalizes these confound; so that fact that team ortg and inidividual ortg are based on the same principles says nothing about the problems with individual ortg.

[Nivek]

No, I'm simply saying that Kobe's value that year is already well known because of other, more useful stats than Ortg. Ortg is just too confoundable and imprecise to mean all that much.

What are you talking about? ORtg is not confoundable at all . It's based on the same principles of team offensive rating. Is it 100% exact? Of course not, but it is still the most complete individual offensive metric to date. I suggest you read up on it (and I'm not trying be condescending, its very interesting)

individual ortg is very much confounded, in the sense that often captures teammate's contributions to offense that are captured by individual box stats. team ortg, however, internalizes these confound; so that fact that team ortg and inidividual ortg are based on the same principles says nothing about the problems with individual ortg.

I could not figure out what you're attempting to argue in support of the assertion that individual ortg is "very much confounded." I'd be interested to see thoughtful analysis of the problems with individual ortg, if you have thoughtful analysis to offer.