The insanity of emphasizing efficiency

[mdenny]

This really isn't complicated.

Suppose we say a basketball team will make 160 shot attempts per game.

We could roughly divide those shots into percentiles of expected outcome.

So say 35% of 3 point shots are good.
Say 65% of low post shot attempts are good.
Say 43% of midrange shots are good.

So when the new efficiency fans hitch their wagons to a player....they actually say stuff like "gotta keep their attempts down".

But in doing so for a particular player....there's no reason to think that minimizing low quality shots for a player correlates with minimizing low quality shots for a team.

So when ppl are talking themselves out of breath on how scotty barnes can be better....what they are ACTUALLY want is to redistribute more bad shots tk his teammates and more good shots to him.

It's not clear that by "changing scotty's shots to higher % attempts" has any impact on a team's wins or losses if you are simply redistributing better shots to him and worse shots to his teammates.

The Scott Barnes threads are crazy to me. Ppl are literally saying....what we need to do is find ways so that scotty barnes has the easiest shots and never takes shots that aren't easy. Lol

It's a strange motivation that can become detached from actually winning basketball games.

So suppose this hypothetical: the Raptors win every game when the most inefficient shots are specifically distributed to barnes.

Oh wait...that would mean barnes was a point guard.

[nivisi9]

Isnt it just that he shoots a lower overall percentage so if he takes higher percentage shots then his own + the teams overall FG percentage improves?

Even if it means also redistributing his higher difficulty shots to other teammates, isn't the idea those teammates are likely better shooters = improved percentage

therefore Scottie higher percentage shots + redistributing his lower percentage shots to better shooting teammates = overall net improved team shooting percentage/offensive efficiency?

[Badonkadonk]

Weird topic, then realized it was just more Scottie hate from this OP.

I guess posting random videos of Pascal being mad at a "bratty" Scottie in the appropriate thread wasn't enough, had to also get this out of his system.

[mdenny]

Isnt it just that he shoots a lower overall percentage so if he takes higher percentage shots then his own + the teams overall FG percentage improves?

Even if it means also redistributing his higher difficulty shots to other teammates, isn't the idea those teammates are likely better shooters = improved percentage

therefore Scottie higher percentage shots + redistributing his lower percentage shots to better shooting teammates = overall net improved team shooting percentage/offensive efficiency?

There are certainly macro trends where an entire team can shoot more or less efficiently.

But that's not the basis of discussion in one billion posts trying to talk about scotty.

Another hypothetical point: Scotty can conceivably become a more impactful player while his TS% decreases. He can also become a less impactful player while his TS% goes up.

After all....if Scotty decides, to the detriment of the team, that he will only make a shot attempt if it has an 80% success rate.....then he will become a worse player but his TS% will go up.

Taking it to a logical team...the entire team could engage a strategy that they never attempt a basket unless it is 95% certain to succeed.

So their collective TS% skyrockets. But they only score 20 points each game.

[tsherkin]

This really isn't complicated.

Suppose we say a basketball team will make 160 shot attempts per game.

We could roughly divide those shots into percentiles of expected outcome.

So say 35% of 3 point shots are good.
Say 65% of low post shot attempts are good.
Say 43% of midrange shots are good.

So when the new efficiency fans hitch their wagons to a player....they actually say stuff like "gotta keep their attempts down".

But in doing so for a particular player....there's no reason to think that minimizing low quality shots for a player correlates with minimizing low quality shots for a team.

So when ppl are talking themselves out of breath on how scotty barnes can be better....what they are ACTUALLY want is to redistribute more bad shots tk his teammates and more good shots to him.

It's not clear that by "changing scotty's shots to higher % attempts" has any impact on a team's wins or losses if you are simply redistributing better shots to him and worse shots to his teammates.

The Scott Barnes threads are crazy to me. Ppl are literally saying....what we need to do is find ways so that scotty barnes has the easiest shots and never takes shots that aren't easy. Lol

It's a strange motivation that can become detached from actually winning basketball games.

So suppose this hypothetical: the Raptors win every game when the most inefficient shots are specifically distributed to barnes.

Oh wait...that would mean barnes was a point guard.

So this isn't a particularly savvy approach to anything.

When you're 5% below league average efficiency and shooting in volume, you are actively harming the team offense. This isn't news; it used to be called "gunning" in older parlance. Even before TS% was popularized, it was known that when you shot poorly and weren't scoring well, you were a problem. There was some tolerance on lower-quality offenses for lower overall efficiency, but it was still problematic. And historical examination does show that better players scored more efficiently, looking backwards. And certainly a lot better than Scottie.

Meantime, the discussion around Scottie comes in the context of better players being around on the roster. BI, Quick, RJ inside certain role parameters, Gradey (again, inside certain parameters) and so forth.

Not sure where this rant comes from, but it doesn't appear to make much sense.

[Psubs]

Marthurin sits and Nesmith has emerged. I read that Mathurin doesn't process quick enough.

I think this is the way the Raptors have to build.

[ForeverTFC]

You do know that a team has a say in their overall shot quality, right? Taking away bad shots from one player does not mean giving bad shots to another.

IQ and BI are miles better at generating more efficient shots vs Scottie. If you simply took some of Scottie's bad looks away and gave it to them, the team's overall shot quality would go up.

[mdenny]

Weird topic, then realized it was just more Scottie hate from this OP.

I guess posting random videos of Pascal being mad at a "bratty" Scottie in the appropriate thread wasn't enough, had to also get this out of his system.

Weird response.

Maybe you'd be more comfortable endlessly brainstorming how we manipulate the game to produce higher efficiency stats for Scot Barnes.

[mdenny]

This really isn't complicated.

Suppose we say a basketball team will make 160 shot attempts per game.

We could roughly divide those shots into percentiles of expected outcome.

So say 35% of 3 point shots are good.
Say 65% of low post shot attempts are good.
Say 43% of midrange shots are good.

So when the new efficiency fans hitch their wagons to a player....they actually say stuff like "gotta keep their attempts down".

But in doing so for a particular player....there's no reason to think that minimizing low quality shots for a player correlates with minimizing low quality shots for a team.

So when ppl are talking themselves out of breath on how scotty barnes can be better....what they are ACTUALLY want is to redistribute more bad shots tk his teammates and more good shots to him.

It's not clear that by "changing scotty's shots to higher % attempts" has any impact on a team's wins or losses if you are simply redistributing better shots to him and worse shots to his teammates.

The Scott Barnes threads are crazy to me. Ppl are literally saying....what we need to do is find ways so that scotty barnes has the easiest shots and never takes shots that aren't easy. Lol

It's a strange motivation that can become detached from actually winning basketball games.

So suppose this hypothetical: the Raptors win every game when the most inefficient shots are specifically distributed to barnes.

Oh wait...that would mean barnes was a point guard.

So this isn't a particularly savvy approach to anything.

When you're 5% below league average efficiency and shooting in volume, you are actively harming the team offense. This isn't news; it used to be called "gunning" in older parlance. Even before TS% was popularized, it was known that when you shot poorly and weren't scoring well, you were a problem. There was some tolerance on lower-quality offenses for lower overall efficiency, but it was still problematic. And historical examination does show that better players scored more efficiently, looking backwards. And certainly a lot better than Scottie.

Meantime, the discussion around Scottie comes in the context of better players being around on the roster. BI, Quick, RJ inside certain role parameters, Gradey (again, inside certain parameters) and so forth.

Not sure where this rant comes from, but it doesn't appear to make much sense.

Question....why don't the TS% lists correlate with the best basketball players?

If we could correlate basketball wins and losses with TS%...why haven't we unlocked the gambling sphere?

[tsherkin]

Question....why don't the TS% lists correlate with the best basketball players?

Because that would be a violently simplistic way of looking at things based on what TS% tells us. And that's not a particularly strong start to a counterpoint, either. Commentary on TS% has parameters. No one expects 70% TS from not-Jokic, after all, particularly in non-ideal environments. "Not being the worst of over 5 dozen guys at comparable scoring averages," on the other hand...

[mdenny]

Question....why don't the TS% lists correlate with the best basketball players?

Because that would be a violently simplistic way of looking at things based on what TS% tells us. And that's not a particularly strong start to a counterpoint, either. Commentary on TS% has parameters. No one expects 70% TS from not-Jokic, after all, particularly in non-ideal environments. "Not being the worst of over 5 dozen guys at comparable scoring averages," on the other hand...

There are 90 pages of scotty barnes discussion and 90% of it (as I understand it) seeks to find ways to raise his TS%.

Like I stated earlier....it is ABSOLUTELY possible that Scottie Barnes becomes a better basketball player next season while his TS% goes down (or remains the same).

Your endless discussion in that thread reads to me as finding ways to manipulate the data. "Scottie has to stop taking so many shots".

That whole thread is a carraige that is pushing a horse.

[C_Money]

I saw a Reddit thread yesterday where RJ, Gradey, Walter and Mogbo are in the top 12 worst finishers in the NBA. Our team’s entire shot selection needs to be massively improved for next season. Not just Scottie.

[tsherkin]

There are 90 pages of scotty barnes discussion and 90% of it (as I understand it) seeks to find ways to raise his TS%.

Like I stated earlier....it is ABSOLUTELY possible that Scottie Barnes becomes a better basketball player next season while his TS% goes down (or remains the same).

This isn't subtle, man. The discussion centers around his efficiency because if you're scoring in any kind of meaningful volume and you're THAT BAD relative to your peers, it's a huge problem.

He's a good defender, he's a good rebounder, he's a good passer. These are all positive things. But if you're the worst volume scorer in the league, that's a huge issue.

If his TS% goes DOWN, he'd become a historically useless scoring threat. That isn't the kind of history one wants to make.

[Psubs]

Question....why don't the TS% lists correlate with the best basketball players?

If we could correlate basketball wins and losses with TS%...why haven't we unlocked the gambling sphere?

Because you can have a 58% TS but your opponent is doing better at say 60% then your defense isn't good.

Like Trae Young.

[ForeverTFC]

I saw a Reddit thread yesterday where RJ, Gradey, Walter and Mogbo are in the top 12 worst finishers in the NBA. Our team’s entire shot selection needs to be massively improved for next season. Not just Scottie.

We were 2nd to last in 3PA and Isolation possessions last year and were bottom of the league in PnR possessions. We had a very high assist rate and were top 5 in the league on cuts. I suspect with BI in the lineup and IQ hopefully healthy, the offense balances out a bit and everyone's shot quality increases.

[tsherkin]

I saw a Reddit thread yesterday where RJ, Gradey, Walter and Mogbo are in the top 12 worst finishers in the NBA. Our team’s entire shot selection needs to be massively improved for next season. Not just Scottie.

We were 2nd to last in 3PA and Isolation possessions last year and were bottom of the league in PnR possessions. We had a very high assist rate and were top 5 in the league on cuts. I suspect with BI in the lineup and IQ hopefully healthy, the offense balances out a bit and everyone's shot quality increases.

I think health alone will help us have better spacing and shot quality, but I agree that BI's arrival specifically will help us out a lot. IQ being healthy opens a lot of doors for us as well.

[mdenny]

There are 90 pages of scotty barnes discussion and 90% of it (as I understand it) seeks to find ways to raise his TS%.

Like I stated earlier....it is ABSOLUTELY possible that Scottie Barnes becomes a better basketball player next season while his TS% goes down (or remains the same).

This isn't subtle, man. The discussion centers around his efficiency because if you're scoring in any kind of meaningful volume and you're THAT BAD relative to your peers, it's a huge problem.

He's a good defender, he's a good rebounder, he's a good passer. These are all positive things. But if you're the worst volume scorer in the league, that's a huge issue.

If his TS% goes DOWN, he'd become a historically useless scoring threat. That isn't the kind of history one wants to make.

Tsherkin....your Efficiency stats don't successfully predict anything.

Some of the greatest basketball players in history who have won championships cannot be identified by TS%.

It's a mirage. And a good portion of your discussion on this board is literally "how can we manipulate the game to produce desired stats". And there are ways of producing those stats that have zero impact on actually winning basketball games. In some cases...detrimental.

For example...a coach could instruct a team to play in such way that their collective TS% would be above 90% while they only score 20 points.

[DG88]

mdenny this is a warning to you. Please stop with this discourse. We get it, you love Fred and hate Scottie. There is a healthy way to engage in the forum and an unhealthy way. I'm locking this thread due to where it's going and what you're trying to do. If more of this behaviour continues you're getting a timeout.