Lowest TS% of any productive scorer (10+ ppg)?

ponder276 · Post #1 » by **ponder276** » Thu Jul 17, 2008 4:37 am

Who was the least efficient 10+ ppg scorer in the league last season? Off the top of my head I'd say Tracy McGrady (.487 TS%), but I feel like there must be less efficient 10+ ppg scorers out there.

Yao_noodle · Post #2 » by **Yao_noodle** » Thu Jul 17, 2008 4:54 am

Larry Hughes
.468

JD225 · Post #3 » by **JD225** » Thu Jul 17, 2008 5:27 am

It's Tinsley at .458

ponder276 · Post #4 » by **ponder276** » Thu Jul 17, 2008 5:32 am

Yao_noodle wrote:Larry Hughes
.468

Good call. Who else is down there? A few that spring to mind are:
- Travis Outlaw (.500 TS%)
- Andrea Bargnani (.495 TS%)

You'd figure guys like Jamal Crawford and Kevin Durant would be down there, but they're actually a fair bit better at .528 and .519 respectively

Uros Slowcar · Post #5 » by **Uros Slowcar** » Thu Jul 17, 2008 5:45 am

Willie Green @ 49.2% 12.4 ppg
jason Kidd with NJ @ 48.3% 11.3ppg
Rafer Alston @ 49.2% 13.1 ppg

NyKnicks1714 · Post #6 » by **NyKnicks1714** » Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:32 am

Am I the only one who doesn't know what TS% is?

Post #7 » by **rsavaj** » Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:48 am

"TS% True Shooting Percentage calculates what a player’s shooting percentage would be if we accounted for free throws and 3-pointers. True Shooting Percentage = (Total points x 50) divided by [(FGA + (FTA x 0.44)]"

richboy · Post #8 » by **richboy** » Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:52 am

Jeff Green also was pretty low.

Canomad · Post #9 » by **Canomad** » Thu Jul 17, 2008 7:12 am

what was kevin durant ts?

ss1986v2 · Post #10 » by **ss1986v2** » Thu Jul 17, 2008 7:30 am

richboy wrote:Jeff Green also was pretty low.

49.2%

letsgetit wrote:what was kevin durant ts?

51.9%

ice9 · Post #11 » by **ice9** » Thu Jul 17, 2008 12:04 pm

http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/ ... r_by_asc=Y

3 Bulls had a ts% at .501 or below (worst 13 in the league)

76erinSJ · Post #12 » by **76erinSJ** » Thu Jul 17, 2008 4:50 pm

I hate you Ice. That wasnt Bens hilites lol.

LakerFanMan · Post #13 » by **LakerFanMan** » Thu Jul 17, 2008 4:59 pm

TS% really isn't that great to be honest.

Post #14 » by **Paydro70** » Thu Jul 17, 2008 5:20 pm

Yeah... god forbid we account for someone's ability to get to the line...

The answer is indeed Tinsley's .458, Larry Hughes being a close second. Special shout-out to Ben Wallace, by far the worst player who played more than 15mpg: .408

kevC · Post #15 » by **kevC** » Thu Jul 17, 2008 5:34 pm

LakerFanMan wrote:TS% really isn't that great to be honest.

I don't understand this. How could you possibly argue this? You can't possibly say you prefer FG%?

Post #16 » by **Schad** » Thu Jul 17, 2008 5:42 pm

Most inefficient active scorers with more than 5000 career minutes at 10+ ppg:

- Jamaal Tinsley: .474 TS%.
- Antoine Walker: .484.
- Larry Hughes: .487.
- Raymond Felton: .488.
- Rafer Alston: .494.

Pretty much the names that immediately come to mind. TJ Ford is 6th, but not for long...his scoring efficiency has improved by leaps and bounds.

Post #17 » by **tkb** » Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:38 pm

Quentin Richardson at 8.1 ppg on .444 tsp was really ugly.
Darko 7.2 ppg on .456.

Tinsley is the worst one above 10 ppg tho.

Jordan23Forever · Post #18 » by **Jordan23Forever** » Thu Jul 17, 2008 8:35 pm

TS% is artificially inflated due to the absurd number of FT's that star players get. Even eFG% -- still a flawed stat -- is better than TS% if one wants to accurately gauge a player's offensive efficiency. Give star players 7-9 FTA instead of 9.5-11.5 FTA and tell me what their tee-ehs percentage is then.

Another reason why eFG% and TS% are flawed is because they only account for the benefit of 3-pointers (i.e., the extra point) while making absolutely no correction for the negatives of 3-pointers (i.e., more actual misses, lesser chance for o-rebs, more fastbreaks, stagnant offenses, lack of foul drawing/playmaking on such attempts etc.).

Post #19 » by **Sixerscan** » Thu Jul 17, 2008 8:56 pm

TS% is artificially inflated due to the absurd number of FT's that star players get. Even eFG% -- still a flawed stat -- is better than TS% if one wants to accurately gauge a player's offensive efficiency. Give star players 7-9 FTA instead of 9.5-11.5 FTA and tell me what their tee-ehs percentage is then.

Who cares? Do they have to give the points back at the end of the game or something? If they can get more calls than the average person then that's part of their value to the team.

Another reason why eFG% and TS% are flawed is because they only account for the benefit of 3-pointers (i.e., the extra point) while making absolutely no correction for the negatives of 3-pointers (i.e., more actual misses, lesser chance for o-rebs, more fastbreaks, stagnant offenses, lack of foul drawing/playmaking on such attempts etc.).

If there was one statistic that told you exactly how efficient of a shooter each player was, that would take all the fun out of this wouldn't it?

the whole world is flawed

ph1sh55 · Post #20 » by **ph1sh55** » Thu Jul 17, 2008 9:13 pm

Jordan23Forever wrote:TS% is artificially inflated due to the absurd number of FT's that star players get. Even eFG% -- still a flawed stat -- is better than TS% if one wants to accurately gauge a player's offensive efficiency. Give star players 7-9 FTA instead of 9.5-11.5 FTA and tell me what their tee-ehs percentage is then.

No this is not artificial inflation, it is accounting for real free throws that players have actually attempted in the real game of basketball. On the contrary, giving certain players fewer free throws and free throw attempts than they have actually attempted would be artificial, and inaccurate in gauging their scoring efficiency on the basketball court.

Another reason why eFG% and TS% are flawed is because they only account for the benefit of 3-pointers (i.e., the extra point) while making absolutely no correction for the negatives of 3-pointers (i.e., more actual misses, lesser chance for o-rebs, more fastbreaks, stagnant offenses, lack of foul drawing/playmaking on such attempts etc.).

Are you claiming that field goal attempts are not accounted for in the formulas or something? Both of those measures account for any extra misses from 3 pointers...since they account for FGA.
And 3 point shots often have higher chances for offensive rebounds, as they are often long rebounds. Besides, this is a metric to determine who is the most efficient scorer per field goal attempt, not what misses are optimal; and that's exactly what it does.