why ppl use ts% so much?

[grimballer]

i understand what ts% does, but its way too simplified to be used as some sort of measurement. the point of stats is to give a fan an idea whos good in what aspect of the game. steve nash n dwight howard have a similar ts% n thats where the similarities end. steve nash is good in every aspect of shooting, howard is only good at one, however just by looking at their ts%, someone would think theyre equally good.

[Doctor MJ]

Knowing how many points a player produces every time he shoots the basketball is useful information for people who like basketball.

[grimballer]

i get that, however its still looks like a pointless stat. like i said before the whole point of stats is to distinguish player a from player b, or to determine whos good in what. if u need a rebound, ull probably look for a player with high rebound ave, or if u into advance stats, reb%.

on the other hand ur not gonna look at ts%, when u need a 3 or free throws. u gonna look at each shooting stat separately. so whats the point of knowing howard is good ts%, when he cant hit a 3 or make high% of his ft?

n btw if u wanna know how many points player produces per shot, why not just look at pps (pts/(fga+fta)). it would be more accurate than ts%.

[mysticbb]

i get that, however its still looks like a pointless stat.

No, you don't get that. TS% tells you how efficient a player is using his scoring opportunities, that is an important thing to know, because a team has to use their own possessions more efficient than the opponent in order to win the game.

n btw if u wanna know how many points player produces per shot, why not just look at pps (pts/(fga+fta)). it would be more accurate than ts%.

There are more FTA given out when a player is fouled, but still, the amount of scoring possessions remains only 1. That's why we HAVE to adjust for that with the coefficient used for the FTA.

[qianlong]

i understand what ts% does, but its way too simplified to be used as some sort of measurement. the point of stats is to give a fan an idea whos good in what aspect of the game. steve nash n dwight howard have a similar ts% n thats where the similarities end. steve nash is good in every aspect of shooting, howard is only good at one, however just by looking at their ts%, someone would think theyre equally good.

ts is perfectly fine in doing that, is the best stat in doing what it does and that is saying how efficiently a player will score, in possesions in games. the fact that ts exists doesn't erase all other stats, if you want a good three point shot at the end of regulation you don't look at ts you look at 3p%. if you want to see who on your team scores in the most efficient way then you look at ts.

No, you don't get that. TS% tells you how efficient a player is using his scoring opportunities, that is an important thing to know, because a team has to use their own possessions more efficient than the opponent in order to win the game.

well here is where i sort of disagree on the use of ts. mine is a different concern with the use of ts or more specifically with the use of efficiency. scoring in a more efficient way is great, but what should be more interesting is being more effective not more efficient than your opponent. if you are more effective at scoring than your opponent because you are more efficient, generally most cases, well, but if you are more effective without being more efficient it is still good to me.
just an example if you know that your team is very good at offensive rebounding you may accept to take a bit worse shots because you are probably getting some more possesions and therefore generating more points. i am not suggesting throwing efficiency out of the window its importance is obvious but to me efficiency is sometimes a bit overvalued.

[grimballer]

i get that, however its still looks like a pointless stat.

No, you don't get that. TS% tells you how efficient a player is using his scoring opportunities, that is an important thing to know, because a team has to use their own possessions more efficient than the opponent in order to win the game.

but u would have a better idea if those shooting stats were separate. we gonna go back to the nash vs howard example. they both shoot similar ts%, however one does it all over the floor, while the other does it just around the basket. pretending like thats just a irrelevant detail dont make any sense. all u gotta do is put howard on the ft line n his ts% becomes irrelevant.

now i dont know why nba has fg% n then 3%. they shouldve separate those 2 in 2%, 3%. knowing players 2%, 3% n ft% separate makes more sense than just knowing some ts%.

n btw if u wanna know how many points player produces per shot, why not just look at pps (pts/(fga+fta)). it would be more accurate than ts%.

There are more FTA given out when a player is fouled, but still, the amount of scoring possessions remains only 1. That's why we HAVE to adjust for that with the coefficient used for the FTA.

the fact that ft is worth less n u get more ft is irrelevant. remember u wanna know how much a player scores per shot. ft is worth less, so u have to make more of them in order to be as productive.

[grimballer]

i understand what ts% does, but its way too simplified to be used as some sort of measurement. the point of stats is to give a fan an idea whos good in what aspect of the game. steve nash n dwight howard have a similar ts% n thats where the similarities end. steve nash is good in every aspect of shooting, howard is only good at one, however just by looking at their ts%, someone would think theyre equally good.

ts is perfectly fine in doing that, is the best stat in doing what it does and that is saying how efficiently a player will score, in possesions in games. the fact that ts exists doesn't erase all other stats, if you want a good three point shot at the end of regulation you don't look at ts you look at 3p%. if you want to see who on your team scores in the most efficient way then you look at ts.

No, you don't get that. TS% tells you how efficient a player is using his scoring opportunities, that is an important thing to know, because a team has to use their own possessions more efficient than the opponent in order to win the game.

well here is where i sort of disagree on the use of ts. mine is a different concern with the use of ts or more specifically with the use of efficiency. scoring in a more efficient way is great, but what should be more interesting is being more effective not more efficient than your opponent. if you are more effective at scoring than your opponent because you are more efficient, generally most cases, well, but if you are more effective without being more efficient it is still good to me.
just an example if you know that your team is very good at offensive rebounding you may accept to take a bit worse shots because you are probably getting some more possesions and therefore generating more points. i am not suggesting throwing efficiency out of the window its importance is obvious but to me efficiency is sometimes a bit overvalued.

or u could just refer to 2%, 3% n ft% n ignore the ts% all together.

[mysticbb]

well here is where i sort of disagree on the use of ts.

You can disagree as much as you like, but I guess that is a mistake you are making, because of semantic differences here. The important thing is that each team has roughly the same amount of possessions, the team which is using those more efficient will win the game.
An example: The Sacramento Kings scored more points per game than the Chicago Bulls, they were more effective. But they've done that on a higher pace, and the Bulls were more efficient at using their possessions. Efficiency wins over effectivity.

just an example if you know that your team is very good at offensive rebounding you may accept to take a bit worse shots because you are probably getting some more possesions and therefore generating more points. i am not suggesting throwing efficiency out of the window its importance is obvious but to me efficiency is sometimes a bit overvalued.

Throwing balls away on purpose isn't going to win you any games. Even the best offensive rebounding teams will lose 70% of the rebounding battles on offense. The idea is not a good one. Each more efficient scoring team is preferable.
For the overall offensive efficiency: offensive rebounds keep the possessions, thus they help being more efficient.

but u would have a better idea if those shooting stats were separate.

No, it is not.

An example: In 2008 Jason Kapono made 49% of his shot attempts, 48% from 3pt range and 86% from the free throw line. In comparison to that JR Smith had 46/40/72. Yet, JR Smith ended up with 60.3 TS% and Kapono with 56.1 TS%. JR Smith was the more efficient scorer due to his playing style. You don't see that by just looking at FG%, 3P% and FT%. TS% tells you that right away.

now i dont know why nba has fg% n then 3%. they shouldve separate those 2 in 2%, 3%. knowing players 2%, 3% n ft% separate makes more sense than just knowing some ts%.

No, it doesn't make more sense. You still haven't understood what TS% is telling you. You want different informations than the scoring efficiency, well, you have to look at different things. If you want to know how good someone is at converting his scoring opportunities, you HAVE to look at TS%. Everything else will not give you a better information about that.

the fact that ft is worth less n u get more ft is irrelevant.

No, it is not irrelevant. Try to understand basketball before you are making claims like that. It is silly to ignore that, because you want to have a specific information which makes it necessary to adjust for the amount of FTA. If you don't get it, that doesn't make the stats bad, it just shows your lack of understanding.

You want to know something different than scoring efficiency? You want to know how good someone is at making 2's, 3's or FT's? Well, you will not find that answer with TS%. Try to understand what TS% is telling you. As long as you don't get it, it is worthless to try to argue against it.

[grimballer]

but u would have a better idea if those shooting stats were separate.

No, it is not.

An example: In 2008 Jason Kapono made 49% of his shot attempts, 48% from 3pt range and 86% from the free throw line. In comparison to that JR Smith had 46/40/72. Yet, JR Smith ended up with 60.3 TS% and Kapono with 56.1 TS%. JR Smith was the more efficient scorer due to his playing style. You don't see that by just looking at FG%, 3P% and FT%. TS% tells you that right away.

thats all good except that u forgot to mention that jr shot much better 2% n he also made more 3s n fts.

now i dont know why nba has fg% n then 3%. they shouldve separate those 2 in 2%, 3%. knowing players 2%, 3% n ft% separate makes more sense than just knowing some ts%.

No, it doesn't make more sense. You still haven't understood what TS% is telling you. You want different informations than the scoring efficiency, well, you have to look at different things. If you want to know how good someone is at converting his scoring opportunities, you HAVE to look at TS%. Everything else will not give you a better information about that.

if u wanna know how good someone is at converting his scoring opportunities u look at pps, if u need more details on that u look at 2%, 3% n ft%why is this so hard?

the fact that ft is worth less n u get more ft is irrelevant.

No, it is not irrelevant. Try to understand basketball before you are making claims like that. It is silly to ignore that, because you want to have a specific information which makes it necessary to adjust for the amount of FTA. If you don't get it, that doesn't make the stats bad, it just shows your lack of understanding.

You want to know something different than scoring efficiency? You want to know how good someone is at making 2's, 3's or FT's? Well, you will not find that answer with TS%. Try to understand what TS% is telling you. As long as you don't get it, it is worthless to try to argue against it.

its funny u telling someone whos been watchin bball way more than u "try to understand bball". u discovered ts% six months ago. great, it still doesnt mean u "understand bball". it just means u use more stats. thats it.

theres no way u can prove ts% is more accurate than pps or the alternative (pts/(fga+fta)).

[mysticbb]

thats all good except that u forgot to mention that jr shot much better 2% n he also made more 3s n fts.

So, what you are saying is that you need MORE informations in order to get a better impression about the player? Nice. But you don't have those informations, if you just look at FG%, 3P% and FT%.

its funny u telling someone whos been watchin bball way more than u "try to understand bball".

Yeah, for sure. :lol:

theres no way u can prove ts% is more accurate than pps or the alternative (pts/(fga+fta)).

Oh, there is a way to prove it. correlation analysis:

Code: Select all

   Correlations
      Ortg   Ts%
Pearson Correlation   Ortg   1,000   ,869
   Ts%   ,869   1,000
Sig. (1-tailed)   Ortg   .   ,000
   Ts%   ,000   .
N   Ortg   953   953
   Ts%   953   953


Code: Select all

   Correlations
      Ortg   PPS
Pearson Correlation   Ortg   1,000   ,784
   PPS   ,784   1,000
Sig. (1-tailed)   Ortg   .   ,000
   PPS   ,000   .
N   Ortg   953   953
   PPS   953   953



Dataset from 1973/74 to 2009/10. Correlation coefficient for TS% is 0.87, the one for "your PPS" is 0.78. TS% has a higher correlation to the team ORtg than "your PPS". Can we now put that to rest?

[grimballer]

thats all good except that u forgot to mention that jr shot much better 2% n he also made more 3s n fts.

So, what you are saying is that you need MORE informations in order to get a better impression about the player? Nice. But you don't have those informations, if you just look at FG%, 3P% and FT%.

well u can just look at %s, however making more shots at similar % = better. that should be common sense.

ur not gonna argue that jodie meeks, with his 7 fga n 10 ppg, is as likley to make a shot as lets say nash or lebron just cause he has a similar ts%? are u?

theres no way u can prove ts% is more accurate than pps or the alternative (pts/(fga+fta)).

Oh, there is a way to prove it. correlation analysis:

Code: Select all

   Correlations
      Ortg   Ts%
Pearson Correlation   Ortg   1,000   ,869
   Ts%   ,869   1,000
Sig. (1-tailed)   Ortg   .   ,000
   Ts%   ,000   .
N   Ortg   953   953
   Ts%   953   953


Code: Select all

   Correlations
      Ortg   PPS
Pearson Correlation   Ortg   1,000   ,784
   PPS   ,784   1,000
Sig. (1-tailed)   Ortg   .   ,000
   PPS   ,000   .
N   Ortg   953   953
   PPS   953   953



Dataset from 1973/74 to 2009/10. Correlation coefficient for TS% is 0.87, the one for "your PPS" is 0.78. TS% has a higher correlation to the team ORtg than "your PPS". Can we now put that to rest?

that doesnt prove anything. when did ortg became the generally accepted standard of efficiency?

u proving one questionable measurement by using another questionable measurement? great job!

unlike ts%, which = formula with random values, pps (pts/(fga+fta)) gives u players actual production.

[Doctor MJ]

unlike ts%, which = formula with random values, pps (pts/(fga+fta)) gives u players actual production.

I kinda can't believe we're still having this discussion. Clearly there's some trouble in the communication. I'll give it a shot.

There are many pieces of data that are meaningful, and I use them all.

I use FG% and FGA. I use FT% and FTA. I use 3P% and 3PA. Heck I use EFG% and I use the more sophisticated breakdowns of where a guy is shooting you can use elsewhere.

I also want to know though, when a guy performs the shooting action that will end a possession (short of an offensive rebound), how many points does he get for his team on average. That's what TS% attempts to measure, and really nothing else does. I can't imagine you'd call that information worthless, so it should seem clear to you why I use it.

As far the use of anything as a one number metric for shooting, obviously there is a trade off there. One does this for rapid general analysis. Quite correct to say that someone truly trying to understand the player on the team in question would want to go deeper than this - but at the same time the idea that it's inherently wrong to try to analyze quantify various factors and thus gain the ability to tally them together is just bizarre.

The random numbers in TS% aren't random. They are based on league averages which are trying to not count AND 1 free throws toward the number of possessions used. It's an approximation, but it works quite well. Players really don't deviate from that average by that much.

As far as why TS% is used and your points per shot metric isn't, I'd challenge you to answer what your metric actually means. As mentioned before, I can use TS% as an approximation of how much a player produces per possessions he uses up through shooting. This is a fundamental concept that everyone wants to know.

Your FGA + FTA metric doesn't yield that kind of data. From it, I have no concept I can related to points per possession, which is the fundamental idea really behind all modern stats. So what good does it do me?

When you advocate for stats, THAT is what you have to keep in mind: How is this information useful? FG% is a useful measure of a basic stat, TS% is a useful measure of an advanced consturct, what does you metric do for me?

[mysticbb]

well u can just look at %s, however making more shots at similar % = better. that should be common sense.

ur not gonna argue that jodie meeks, with his 7 fga n 10 ppg, is as likley to make a shot as lets say nash or lebron just cause he has a similar ts%? are u?

Nice, a straw man. If you like to argue with yourself, maybe you should do it somewhere else?

that doesnt prove anything.

I just showed that your proposed "better" metric is doing worse than TS% in terms of saying something about being efficient as a scorer.

when did ortg became the generally accepted standard of efficiency?

You are trying to make a joke, right? Because ORtg is points per 100 possessions. That's exactly what efficiency is about. How efficient is a team using their possessions is seen by the ORtg.

unlike ts%, which = formula with random values, pps (pts/(fga+fta)) gives u players actual production.

Random values? The formula is a approximation based on COUNTING possessions! It is the best approximation. The high correlation to ORtg shows that it is useful.

[grimballer]

unlike ts%, which = formula with random values, pps (pts/(fga+fta)) gives u players actual production.

I kinda can't believe we're still having this discussion. Clearly there's some trouble in the communication. I'll give it a shot.

There are many pieces of data that are meaningful, and I use them all.

I use FG% and FGA. I use FT% and FTA. I use 3P% and 3PA. Heck I use EFG% and I use the more sophisticated breakdowns of where a guy is shooting you can use elsewhere.

I also want to know though, when a guy performs the shooting action that will end a possession (short of an offensive rebound), how many points does he get for his team on average. That's what TS% attempts to measure, and really nothing else does. I can't imagine you'd call that information worthless, so it should seem clear to you why I use it.

As far the use of anything as a one number metric for shooting, obviously there is a trade off there. One does this for rapid general analysis. Quite correct to say that someone truly trying to understand the player on the team in question would want to go deeper than this - but at the same time the idea that it's inherently wrong to try to analyze quantify various factors and thus gain the ability to tally them together is just bizarre.

The random numbers in TS% aren't random. They are based on league averages which are trying to not count AND 1 free throws toward the number of possessions used. It's an approximation, but it works quite well. Players really don't deviate from that average by that much.

As far as why TS% is used and your points per shot metric isn't, I'd challenge you to answer what your metric actually means. As mentioned before, I can use TS% as an approximation of how much a player produces per possessions he uses up through shooting. This is a fundamental concept that everyone wants to know.

Your FGA + FTA metric doesn't yield that kind of data. From it, I have no concept I can related to points per possession, which is the fundamental idea really behind all modern stats. So what good does it do me?

When you advocate for stats, THAT is what you have to keep in mind: How is this information useful? FG% is a useful measure of a basic stat, TS% is a useful measure of an advanced consturct, what does you metric do for me?

k, let me try again...

im against putting all these shooting stats together to make a one big "super" stat.

however if u insist on one big "super" stat, hows ts% the best?

1. u wanna know how efficient a player is at shooting?

why just not look at fg%?

whats the point of knowing brian cardinals ts% = 67, when hes a 43% shooter?

ts% tells u hes reliable shot maker, fg% tells u he isnt. which one makes more sense?

2. u wanna know how many points a player produces per shot?

why not look at pps?

if a player produces 1.11 pps, u have an idea how many points he will produce taking x amount of shots.

so if he takes 10 shots, he should produce 11 points.

at the same time, if that same palyer has ts% = 50, so

if he takes 10 shots he should convert 5 of them.

do u know how many points did he score?

are all 5 shots 2s? 4 2s n one 3?

hows knowing players ts% better in this instance?

[grimballer]

well u can just look at %s, however making more shots at similar % = better. that should be common sense.

ur not gonna argue that jodie meeks, with his 7 fga n 10 ppg, is as likley to make a shot as lets say nash or lebron just cause he has a similar ts%? are u?

Nice, a straw man. If you like to argue with yourself, maybe you should do it somewhere else?

what u mean straw man? thats a legit point. is jodie meeks as likley to convert his shot as lebron or nash?

[mysticbb]

however if u insist on one big "super" stat, hows ts% the best?

Because it tells how EFFICIENT a player scores. That is a very important information. As I showed you via the correlation analysis a higher TS% will lead to more efficient offense. Being more efficient than your opponents at converting your possessions into points will give a team the win.

1. u wanna know how efficient a player is at shooting?

why just not look at fg%?

Why? Because FG% is telling you at which rate someone is converting his field goal attempts, it tells you not how efficient someone is shooting nor how efficient someone is scoring. I guess you would call someone who shots 50% from the field good, right? But if he only converts 2pt shot attempts, he will score below league average efficiency. If another team is shooting 35% from the field while only taking 3pt field goal attempts (and assuming the other things are equal), the team with the 35% from 3pt range will win the game. They are making 0.05 points per made field goal more than the other team trying only to connect on 2pt field goals, but making 50% of them.
The FG% is deceptive in that case, because it doesn't tell you the whole story about efficieny.

If you want to know how efficient someone is converting is shot attempts from the field, you should use eFG%, which includes the fact that 3pt shots are giving a team one point more than a 2pt shot.

whats the point of knowing brian cardinals ts% = 67, when hes a 43% shooter?

That is a very important point. Obviously Cardinal is connecting on a lot of 3pt attempts and is taking those at high rate. Knowing that he has a TS% of 0.67 tells us that he scores way above league efficiency, his FG% is not giving us that information.

ts% tells u hes reliable shot maker, fg% tells u he isnt. which one makes more sense?

No, TS% tells us he is an efficient scorer, it doesn't tell us at which rate he converts his shots. Those are different informations. If you want to know at which rate Cardinal makes his shots, look at his FG%. If you want to know how efficient he scores, look at his TS%.

2. u wanna know how many points a player produces per shot?

Per field goal shot? Look at eFG%, that will tell you this.

why not look at pps?

Because that stat will give you a misleading information. You included FTA, but FTA are given out at a different frequency, players can have one additional FTA or two or three in one scoring possession. We have to account for that, if we want to have a reliable information about his scoring efficiency. I showed you that TS% is better than your PPS. I don't make that stuff up, I'm not married to TS% or something like this. My only interest is that I give you an information about TS% in comparison to PPS.

so if he takes 10 shots, he should produce 11 points.

at the same time, if that same palyer has ts% = 50, so

There is NO WAY that a player has a 50 TS%, if he scored 11 points while taking 10 shots.

if he takes 10 shots he should convert 5 of them.

No, that is NOT the information TS% gives you. TS% is the conversation rate of the scoring opportunities (possessions) someone had. It doesn't matter how a players scores points, it matters that he is doing it with a high efficiency.

what u mean straw man? thats a legit point. is jodie meeks as likley to convert his shot as lebron or nash?

Where did I say that? See, that's a straw man. You are making stuff up to refute it after that. I don't even care about that example in this case, because it is meaningless to the discussion. If you want to compare Jodie Meeks ability to convert shots to that of James or Nash, you should go to the Player Comparison board, maybe someone else gives you an answer. ;)

[penbeast0]

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.

Does that mean Billups is a more explosive scorer than Parker? No, it says nothing about scoring volume, role on a team, ability to create your own shot, playmaking (either the player's or his teammates', etc.). It only says that on the average for the same number of possessions that end in a shot (or shooting foul), Billups will score a bit more points -- nothing else.

[Doctor MJ]

2. u wanna know how many points a player produces per shot?

why not look at pps?

if a player produces 1.11 pps, u have an idea how many points he will produce taking x amount of shots.

so if he takes 10 shots, he should produce 11 points.

at the same time, if that same palyer has ts% = 50, so

if he takes 10 shots he should convert 5 of them.

do u know how many points did he score?

are all 5 shots 2s? 4 2s n one 3?

hows knowing players ts% better in this instance?

But what is a "shot"? Understand that TS% is designed to give us an actual approximation for "points per shot" - and it's complicated because complications in that process.

If I'm rating how much a player gives to me every time I let him use up a possession with his shot, then I want something that:

1) Counts AND 1 situations like only 1 attempt, but credits the player the total number of points he scored on the possession both from the FGA and the FTA.

2) Counts the multiple free throws a player gets when he misses after getting fouled as 1 total attempt, because the idea behind free throws is that their sum will replace the opportunity taken away by the foul.

TS% attempts to do EXACTLY that, and succeeds with very little error.

If your "shot" doesn't include FTs it clearly doesn't even begin to address these issues.

If your "shot" does include FTs and weights each one as the equivalent of another FGA, then a player gets LESS efficient by your metric whenever he gets fouled. Examples:

1) Guy makes a 2, and gets fouled. Even if he makes the FTA, he's still only get 3 points in 2 "shots" and so will only have a 1.5 PPS by your metric instead of the two he'd gotten if he hadn't drawn the foul.

2) Guys gets fouled and misses the FGA but makes both FTs. The offensive possession ends just as successfully (more so if you consider that the other team now was cost another foul), yet the player's PPS was only a 1.0 with the 2 FTs instead of a 2.0 he'd have gotten with the FG.

These ridiculously penalizations of players drawing fouls are counter-informative, and thus most people prefer TS%.

[grimballer]

2. u wanna know how many points a player produces per shot?

why not look at pps?

if a player produces 1.11 pps, u have an idea how many points he will produce taking x amount of shots.

so if he takes 10 shots, he should produce 11 points.

at the same time, if that same palyer has ts% = 50, so

if he takes 10 shots he should convert 5 of them.

do u know how many points did he score?

are all 5 shots 2s? 4 2s n one 3?

hows knowing players ts% better in this instance?

But what is a "shot"? Understand that TS% is designed to give us an actual approximation for "points per shot" - and it's complicated because complications in that process.

If I'm rating how much a player gives to me every time I let him use up a possession with his shot, then I want something that:

1) Counts AND 1 situations like only 1 attempt, but credits the player the total number of points he scored on the possession both from the FGA and the FTA.

2) Counts the multiple free throws a player gets when he misses after getting fouled as 1 total attempt, because the idea behind free throws is that their sum will replace the opportunity taken away by the foul.

TS% attempts to do EXACTLY that, and succeeds with very little error.

If your "shot" doesn't include FTs it clearly doesn't even begin to address these issues.

If your "shot" does include FTs and weights each one as the equivalent of another FGA, then a player gets LESS efficient by your metric whenever he gets fouled. Examples:

1) Guy makes a 2, and gets fouled. Even if he makes the FTA, he's still only get 3 points in 2 "shots" and so will only have a 1.5 PPS by your metric instead of the two he'd gotten if he hadn't drawn the foul.

2) Guys gets fouled and misses the FGA but makes both FTs. The offensive possession ends just as successfully (more so if you consider that the other team now was cost another foul), yet the player's PPS was only a 1.0 with the 2 FTs instead of a 2.0 he'd have gotten with the FG.

These ridiculously penalizations of players drawing fouls are counter-informative, and thus most people prefer TS%.

lets compare both with actual examples:

player a = 10/10 ft
palyer b = 10/10 2fg
player c = 10/10 3fg

ts%:

player a = 113%
player b = 100%
player c = 150%

"my" pps:

player a = 1
player b = 2
palyer c = 3

which method makes more sense?

"my" pps tells u exactly how many points a player produces every time he shoots the ball. 2fg is worth more than ft therefore player b with 10/10 2fg produces more than player a with 10/10 ft. likewise palyer c produces more than palyer b with same amount of shots.

now lets look ts%

somehow with ts% player a (10/10 ft = 10 pts) produced more, or is more efficient, than player b (10/10 2fg = 20 pts) on same amount of shots.

how does that make sense?

[grimballer]

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.

Does that mean Billups is a more explosive scorer than Parker? No, it says nothing about scoring volume, role on a team, ability to create your own shot, playmaking (either the player's or his teammates', etc.). It only says that on the average for the same number of possessions that end in a shot (or shooting foul), Billups will score a bit more points -- nothing else.

n if we use "my" method

billups = 0.96 pps
parker = 0.95 pps

so if both take 100 shots

billups = 96 pts
parker = 95 pts

which makes em pretty even.

the reason why billups might have higher ts% is cause ts% tends to overvalue ft.