NBA MVP Discussion Thread 2023-24 (continued)

[bigboi]

It's not really blindly following a stat, TS% is just a modified version of FG% that takes into account 2s, 3s and FTs. A person shooting 50% on mostly 2's will have a lower PPG than a person shooting 50% on mostly 3's even though they have the exact same FG%. TS% represents this.

It is blindly following stats. Prime Harden beats Shaq in TS handily. Shaq beats Harden in FG% handily. Who is a better scorer? I’ll take Shaq 10/10 over Harden as a scorer. TS is just a tool. Without context with other stats, it’s useless. Just like per 36 was once hot on this board, just like per 100 was hot on this board as well…

TS% takes into account Shaq's poor FT shooting, FG% doesn't. Just because you don't understand how a stat works doesn't mean people who do are blindly following it. Harden is a more efficient scorer than Shaq when taking into account points scored off of 3's and FTs.

Harden isn’t a better scorer than Shaq point blank period. Harden was reliant on FT hence when playoff time came and refs swallowed the whistle, he performed worse. Shaq was so dominant at scoring that the only thing that teams could do is put him at the free throw line because he was a walking bucket. No comparison at all

[maxpower8888]

It's not really blindly following a stat, TS% is just a modified version of FG% that takes into account 2s, 3s and FTs. A person shooting 50% on mostly 2's will have a lower PPG than a person shooting 50% on mostly 3's even though they have the exact same FG%. TS% represents this.

There’s value in all stats. But TS% is a far better statistic for comparing the relative scoring efficiency of players over just FG%. Not sure how that’s even up for debate

It’s a stat that gets taken into consideration but no, it isn’t the end all be all. I look at FG% as well. Again I would never take Harden over Shaq as a scorer. Nor do I think Westbrook nor D Rose were ever on Kobe’s level as a scorer despite TS saying otherwise

Just because you wouldn't doesn't mean you're correct in that. And Westbrook's career TS% is a whole 2.4% lower than Kobe's, that's the difference between a 45% and 50% in FG%. You're treating TS% as a "how good of a scorer" metric when you should be looking at it as a "how efficient of a scorer" metric.

[maxpower8888]

It is blindly following stats. Prime Harden beats Shaq in TS handily. Shaq beats Harden in FG% handily. Who is a better scorer? I’ll take Shaq 10/10 over Harden as a scorer. TS is just a tool. Without context with other stats, it’s useless. Just like per 36 was once hot on this board, just like per 100 was hot on this board as well…

TS% takes into account Shaq's poor FT shooting, FG% doesn't. Just because you don't understand how a stat works doesn't mean people who do are blindly following it. Harden is a more efficient scorer than Shaq when taking into account points scored off of 3's and FTs.

Harden isn’t a better scorer than Shaq point blank period. Harden was reliant on FT hence when playoff time came and refs swallowed the whistle, he performed worse. Shaq was so dominant at scoring that the only thing that teams could do is put him at the free throw line because he was a walking bucket. No comparison at all

Shaq took 9.3 FTA per game compared to Harden's 8.5, he went to the line more times and yet generated less points. That's called being less efficient. Just because refs stop blowing fouls when they should be calling them doesn't make Harden a worse scorer than Shaq, it just means the NBA needs to be more consistent with how the playoffs are called vs the regular season.

[bigboi]

There’s value in all stats. But TS% is a far better statistic for comparing the relative scoring efficiency of players over just FG%. Not sure how that’s even up for debate

It’s a stat that gets taken into consideration but no, it isn’t the end all be all. I look at FG% as well. Again I would never take Harden over Shaq as a scorer. Nor do I think Westbrook nor D Rose were ever on Kobe’s level as a scorer despite TS saying otherwise

Just because you wouldn't doesn't mean you're correct in that. And Westbrook's career TS% is a whole 2.4% lower than Kobe's, that's the difference between a 45% and 50% in FG%. You're treating TS% as a "how good of a scorer" metric when you should be looking at it as a "how efficient of a scorer" metric.

I’m looking at primes and you’re talking about careers. Silliness lol. You’re looking at the stat completely wrong. Westbrook and Kobe both hovered around the 54-55 TS mark for majority of their prime. Kobe did peak at 58 however. The stats are literally there buddy.

Efficiency factors into how good of a scorer someone is? Correct?

[bigboi]

TS% takes into account Shaq's poor FT shooting, FG% doesn't. Just because you don't understand how a stat works doesn't mean people who do are blindly following it. Harden is a more efficient scorer than Shaq when taking into account points scored off of 3's and FTs.

Harden isn’t a better scorer than Shaq point blank period. Harden was reliant on FT hence when playoff time came and refs swallowed the whistle, he performed worse. Shaq was so dominant at scoring that the only thing that teams could do is put him at the free throw line because he was a walking bucket. No comparison at all

Shaq took 9.3 FTA per game compared to Harden's 8.5, he went to the line more times and yet generated less points. That's called being less efficient. Just because refs stop blowing fouls when they should be calling them doesn't make Harden a worse scorer than Shaq, it just means the NBA needs to be more consistent with how the playoffs are called vs the regular season.

Was Harden a more dominant scorer than Shaq? Simple question. This will stick a fork in your TS argument.

[The-Power]

It is blindly following stats. Prime Harden beats Shaq in TS handily. Shaq beats Harden in FG% handily. Who is a better scorer? I’ll take Shaq 10/10 over Harden as a scorer. TS is just a tool. Without context with other stats, it’s useless. Just like per 36 was once hot on this board, just like per 100 was hot on this board as well…

TS% measures your scoring efficiency (except that it does not factor in turnovers). FG% does not. FG% just measures the percentage of shots that go into the basket. But that's pretty useless for comparing efficiency in a world in which free throws and 3s exist. That TS% captures scoring efficiency more accurately than FG% is not an opinion, it's a cold hard fact.

When Harden has a higher TS% than Shaq it means he is more efficient at scoring the ball. You can still prefer Shaq over Harden if you want for a multitude of reasons including whose scoring you believe holds up better in the playoffs, who you think is a more reliable score, who draws more defensive attention due to their scoring threat, the impact scoring from different areas on the floor has for the team, and so on.

But none of that changes the efficiency levels at which they objectively score; with the one caveat that you might want to compare players' efficiency relative to their peers and the league they played in, which is why some people prefer to use rTS% when comparing players across different seasons.

All stats require context for interpretation. That's besides the point. The player with the highest TS% is not the best scorer because you need to factor in scoring volume, role on the team, team construction, opponents etc. But the player with the highest TS% is indeed the most efficient at converting scoring attempts. That's just a fact. Use that in your interpretation with appropriate context, yes, but it doesn't change the facts. The very design of the stat makes TS% much more accurately represent scoring efficiency than FG%. It's just very simple math.

[The-Power]

Was Harden a more dominant scorer than Shaq? Simple question. This will stick a fork in your TS argument.

You're the only one talking about scoring dominance. Everyone else is talking about scoring efficiency. You see the difference, right?

[LordCovington33]

TS% takes into account Shaq's poor FT shooting, FG% doesn't. Just because you don't understand how a stat works doesn't mean people who do are blindly following it. Harden is a more efficient scorer than Shaq when taking into account points scored off of 3's and FTs.

Harden isn’t a better scorer than Shaq point blank period. Harden was reliant on FT hence when playoff time came and refs swallowed the whistle, he performed worse. Shaq was so dominant at scoring that the only thing that teams could do is put him at the free throw line because he was a walking bucket. No comparison at all

Shaq took 9.3 FTA per game compared to Harden's 8.5, he went to the line more times and yet generated less points. That's called being less efficient. Just because refs stop blowing fouls when they should be calling them doesn't make Harden a worse scorer than Shaq, it just means the NBA needs to be more consistent with how the playoffs are called vs the regular season.

No stat is perfect obviously. Looking at FG% is flawed, especially when comparing modern-day centers. Many of Embiid’s shots are at the top of the key, while some shoot much closer to the rim. TS% is not the be-all end-all at it can be elevated for players who shoot a lot of three throws and are damn good at it. But also ignoring that is bad because embiid is so dominant at the rim and players tend to reach in and foul him. If not for the foul, that shot has a very high percentage of going in. Everything can be used together to get a better picture.

[maxpower8888]

It’s a stat that gets taken into consideration but no, it isn’t the end all be all. I look at FG% as well. Again I would never take Harden over Shaq as a scorer. Nor do I think Westbrook nor D Rose were ever on Kobe’s level as a scorer despite TS saying otherwise

Just because you wouldn't doesn't mean you're correct in that. And Westbrook's career TS% is a whole 2.4% lower than Kobe's, that's the difference between a 45% and 50% in FG%. You're treating TS% as a "how good of a scorer" metric when you should be looking at it as a "how efficient of a scorer" metric.

I’m looking at primes and you’re talking about careers. Silliness lol. You’re looking at the stat completely wrong. Westbrook and Kobe both hovered around the 54-55 TS mark for majority of their prime. Kobe did peak at 58 however. The stats are literally there buddy.

Efficiency factors into how good of a scorer someone is? Correct?

Between the 2004-05 and 2007-08 seasons, Kobe's TS% was .569, between the 2014-15 and 2017-18 seasons, Westbrook's TS% was .542, that's a 2.7% difference, which is even greater than their career difference. So that was a bad idea to bring up Westbrook and Kobe, it ended up working against you.

Efficiency does factor into how good of a scorer someone is, which is what TS% is. As I said, someone with a higher TS% isn't necessarily a better scorer, it just means that they're more efficient. Kobe was not an efficient scorer but he was one of the greatest scorers of all time. As I said before, you're treating TS% as a "how good of a scorer" stat when what it's meant for is to be a "how efficient of a scorer" stat.

[bigboi]

Was Harden a more dominant scorer than Shaq? Simple question. This will stick a fork in your TS argument.

You're the only one talking about scoring dominance. Everyone else is talking about scoring efficiency. You see the difference, right?

Scoring efficiency is part of scoring dominance. There’s 0 reason to separate the two. 2 players scoring at a similar clip, one player has a higher TS, one player has a higher field goal percentage. Who is the better scorer here?

[maxpower8888]

Harden isn’t a better scorer than Shaq point blank period. Harden was reliant on FT hence when playoff time came and refs swallowed the whistle, he performed worse. Shaq was so dominant at scoring that the only thing that teams could do is put him at the free throw line because he was a walking bucket. No comparison at all

Shaq took 9.3 FTA per game compared to Harden's 8.5, he went to the line more times and yet generated less points. That's called being less efficient. Just because refs stop blowing fouls when they should be calling them doesn't make Harden a worse scorer than Shaq, it just means the NBA needs to be more consistent with how the playoffs are called vs the regular season.

No stat is perfect obviously. Looking at FG% is flawed, especially when comparing modern-day centers. Many of Embiid’s shots are at the top of the key, while some shoot much closer to the rim. TS% is not the be-all end-all at it can be elevated for players who shoot a lot of three throws and are damn good at it. But also ignoring that is bad because embiid is so dominant at the rim and players tend to reach in and foul him. If not for the foul, that shot has a very high percentage of going in. Everything can be used together to get a better picture.

It's supposed to be elevated for players that have high FT%, that's the point of the metric. A point from a made FT goes on the scoreboard just like 2 points from a made 2-pointer. If you can get to the line 20 times a game and shoot them at 90%, you're generating 18 points per game off of FT alone, that's without taking any FGA, that's called efficiency.

[maxpower8888]

Was Harden a more dominant scorer than Shaq? Simple question. This will stick a fork in your TS argument.

You're the only one talking about scoring dominance. Everyone else is talking about scoring efficiency. You see the difference, right?

Scoring efficiency is part of scoring dominance. There’s 0 reason to separate the two. 2 players scoring at a similar clip, one player has a higher TS, one player has a higher field goal percentage. Who is the better scorer here?

The better scorer IMO would be who has the higher value when comparing PPG multiplied by TS%.

If a player scores 30 PPG on .550 TS%, he can have a scoring rating of 16.5. A player who scores 27 PPG on .650 TS% will have a scoring rating of 17.55. Even if Player B has a lower FG%, if you take Player B you will be generating more points with less (assuming the sample sizes are big enough).

[The-Power]

Was Harden a more dominant scorer than Shaq? Simple question. This will stick a fork in your TS argument.

You're the only one talking about scoring dominance. Everyone else is talking about scoring efficiency. You see the difference, right?

Scoring efficiency is part of scoring dominance. There’s 0 reason to separate the two. 2 players scoring at a similar clip, one player has a higher TS, one player has a higher field goal percentage. Who is the better scorer here?

Yes, scoring efficiency is part of scoring dominance. But it's only part of it.

On the second part: you are the one talking about who's better. Nobody else. But I can tell you that the player with the higher TS% is more efficient. Once again, simple math. Whether or not that makes the player a better scorer depends on how you measure goodness and what factors besides efficiency you take into account.

[bigboi]

Just because you wouldn't doesn't mean you're correct in that. And Westbrook's career TS% is a whole 2.4% lower than Kobe's, that's the difference between a 45% and 50% in FG%. You're treating TS% as a "how good of a scorer" metric when you should be looking at it as a "how efficient of a scorer" metric.

I’m looking at primes and you’re talking about careers. Silliness lol. You’re looking at the stat completely wrong. Westbrook and Kobe both hovered around the 54-55 TS mark for majority of their prime. Kobe did peak at 58 however. The stats are literally there buddy.

Efficiency factors into how good of a scorer someone is? Correct?

Between the 2004-05 and 2007-08 seasons, Kobe's TS% was .569, between the 2014-15 and 2017-18 seasons, Westbrook's TS% was .542, that's a 2.7% difference, which is even greater than their career difference. So that was a bad idea to bring up Westbrook and Kobe, it ended up working against you.

Efficiency does factor into how good of a scorer someone is, which is what TS% is. As I said, someone with a higher TS% isn't necessarily a better scorer, it just means that they're more efficient. Kobe was not an efficient scorer but he was one of the greatest scorers of all time. As I said before, you're treating TS% as a "how good of a scorer" stat when what it's meant for is to be a "how efficient of a scorer" stat.

It’s not though. During Kobe’s first championship run, Kobe’s TS peaked at .552 and Westbrook peaked at .554 during his mvp season. Even during his MVP season, Westbrook still wasn’t as good of a scorer as Kobe.

And even then Kobe in 05-06 had a .559 TS which is pretty negligible to Westbrook’s .554 MVP. They weren’t on the same level as scorers that year at all

[maxpower8888]

I’m looking at primes and you’re talking about careers. Silliness lol. You’re looking at the stat completely wrong. Westbrook and Kobe both hovered around the 54-55 TS mark for majority of their prime. Kobe did peak at 58 however. The stats are literally there buddy.

Efficiency factors into how good of a scorer someone is? Correct?

Between the 2004-05 and 2007-08 seasons, Kobe's TS% was .569, between the 2014-15 and 2017-18 seasons, Westbrook's TS% was .542, that's a 2.7% difference, which is even greater than their career difference. So that was a bad idea to bring up Westbrook and Kobe, it ended up working against you.

Efficiency does factor into how good of a scorer someone is, which is what TS% is. As I said, someone with a higher TS% isn't necessarily a better scorer, it just means that they're more efficient. Kobe was not an efficient scorer but he was one of the greatest scorers of all time. As I said before, you're treating TS% as a "how good of a scorer" stat when what it's meant for is to be a "how efficient of a scorer" stat.

It’s not though. During Kobe’s first championship run, Kobe’s TS peaked at .552 and Westbrook peaked at .554 during his mvp season. Even during his MVP season, Westbrook still wasn’t as good of a scorer as Kobe.

And even then Kobe in 05-06 had a .559 TS which is pretty negligible to Westbrook’s .554 MVP. They weren’t on the same level as scorers that year at all

Kobe's first championship run wasn't in his prime, he was in his early 20's and nowhere close to being the player he was in his actual prime between 2005 and 2009. You cherry-picked one of Kobe's earliest seasons to compare it with Westbrook's MVP season. And yes, I would take MVP Westbrook over 20-year old Kobe.

[Bob8]

Hmm, Luka is starting to look really good.

Individual production has never been Luka's problem in MVP debates. It's the impact and lift that comes with these numbers, especially during the RS, that may be questioned compared to other MVP candidates.

Kyrie being mostly out, Luka's starters are Exum/DJJ/Grant/Lively or Powell. I doubt anyone would be starting in any other contender. If anything, Luka is doing miracles.

[bigboi]

You're the only one talking about scoring dominance. Everyone else is talking about scoring efficiency. You see the difference, right?

Scoring efficiency is part of scoring dominance. There’s 0 reason to separate the two. 2 players scoring at a similar clip, one player has a higher TS, one player has a higher field goal percentage. Who is the better scorer here?

Yes, scoring efficiency is part of scoring dominance. But it's only part of it.

On the second part: you are the one talking about who's better. Nobody else. But I can tell you that the player with the higher TS% is more efficient. Once again, simple math. Whether or not that makes the player a better scorer depends on how you measure goodness and what factors besides efficiency you take into account.

This whole argument started because someone said FG% shouldn’t be taken into consideration. My argument is the following, Harden has a better TS than Shaq yet Shaq has a better field goal percentage so why would you not consider FG%. Unless you consider Harden, AD and a host of others to be better scorers than prime Shaq then the way that this board acts like TS is end all be all is silly

[bigboi]

Between the 2004-05 and 2007-08 seasons, Kobe's TS% was .569, between the 2014-15 and 2017-18 seasons, Westbrook's TS% was .542, that's a 2.7% difference, which is even greater than their career difference. So that was a bad idea to bring up Westbrook and Kobe, it ended up working against you.

Efficiency does factor into how good of a scorer someone is, which is what TS% is. As I said, someone with a higher TS% isn't necessarily a better scorer, it just means that they're more efficient. Kobe was not an efficient scorer but he was one of the greatest scorers of all time. As I said before, you're treating TS% as a "how good of a scorer" stat when what it's meant for is to be a "how efficient of a scorer" stat.

It’s not though. During Kobe’s first championship run, Kobe’s TS peaked at .552 and Westbrook peaked at .554 during his mvp season. Even during his MVP season, Westbrook still wasn’t as good of a scorer as Kobe.

And even then Kobe in 05-06 had a .559 TS which is pretty negligible to Westbrook’s .554 MVP. They weren’t on the same level as scorers that year at all

Kobe's first championship run wasn't in his prime, he was in his early 20's and nowhere close to being the player he was in his actual prime between 2005 and 2009. You cherry-picked one of Kobe's earliest seasons to compare it with Westbrook's MVP season. And yes, I would take MVP Westbrook over 20-year old Kobe.

No, you cherry picked stats. And first championship run is definitely part of his prime lol. That’s when he was an elite defender while also being an elite scorer. Come on now

[maxpower8888]

Scoring efficiency is part of scoring dominance. There’s 0 reason to separate the two. 2 players scoring at a similar clip, one player has a higher TS, one player has a higher field goal percentage. Who is the better scorer here?

Yes, scoring efficiency is part of scoring dominance. But it's only part of it.

On the second part: you are the one talking about who's better. Nobody else. But I can tell you that the player with the higher TS% is more efficient. Once again, simple math. Whether or not that makes the player a better scorer depends on how you measure goodness and what factors besides efficiency you take into account.

This whole argument started because someone said FG% shouldn’t be taken into consideration. My argument is the following, Harden has a better TS than Shaq yet Shaq has a better field goal percentage so why would you not consider FG%. Unless you consider Harden, AD and a host of others to be better scorers than prime Shaq then the way that this board acts like TS is end all be all is silly

My dude, TS% takes 3 factors into account.

Total Points scored by the player
Total FGA by the player
Total FTA by the player

That's it, it's not some convoluted formula. Hell, let's take FT's out of it for a bit.

Player A takes 20 shots per game, only 3's, shoots them at 40%.
Player B takes 20 shots per game, only 2's, shoots them at 50%.

Despite the fact that Player B's FG% is a whopping 10% higher than Player A's, Player A will give you 24 PPG compared to Player B's 20 PPG. But player A will have a TS% of .600 and Player B will have a TS% of .500, because Player A's shots are worth 3 points compared to Player B's.

[maxpower8888]

It’s not though. During Kobe’s first championship run, Kobe’s TS peaked at .552 and Westbrook peaked at .554 during his mvp season. Even during his MVP season, Westbrook still wasn’t as good of a scorer as Kobe.

And even then Kobe in 05-06 had a .559 TS which is pretty negligible to Westbrook’s .554 MVP. They weren’t on the same level as scorers that year at all

Kobe's first championship run wasn't in his prime, he was in his early 20's and nowhere close to being the player he was in his actual prime between 2005 and 2009. You cherry-picked one of Kobe's earliest seasons to compare it with Westbrook's MVP season. And yes, I would take MVP Westbrook over 20-year old Kobe.

No, you cherry picked stats. And first championship run is definitely part of his prime lol. That’s when he was an elite defender while also being an elite scorer. Come on now

No it wasn't, you won't find anybody here that will say 2000 to 2002 Kobe was in his prime, stop it. You're just grasping at straws now.