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

[MalReyn]

I'm not sure of his TS% but Adam Morrisons Rookie year had to be much worse than anyone mentioned.

His TS% that year was .450, worse than Tinsley this year.

And for reference, here are the worst TS% seasons in the past 20 years. Morrison's season was #17.

[Bgil]

So earlier, about the +50, its actually x 50, so my point about the calculations is wrong.

Nevertheless, TS% applies no arbitrary weights (that I can see) to its formula. It's purely mathematically derived, as opposed to something like PER which gives weights for a littany of stats. It's actually at the point where you would start adjusting the numbers, like trying to change the .44 that you multiply against ft's to account for the intangible benefits of ft's, for example, that you would start to run into 'weighting' problems.

As such, TS% isn't artificially inflated towards anything. You can use it as symptomatic of artificial inflations in the league, but that TS% itself is "wrong" I think would be a mischaracterization. The more variables in one of these algorigthms, the more potential problems (but certainly a perfect one would provide much more nuanced answers).

You know what's REALLY interesting? A guy who loves to cite PER and EFF is now bashing TS%.

I'm literally dealing with an idiot here. Let me further ask you: why is it always said that "big men win basketball games"? Is it because they're superhuman? No, it's because many of the things that they provide -- namely, high percentage shot attempts, drawing defenders in the post which opens up looks for others, drawing fouls and getting teams in the penalty etc. -- are what wins games. These are the things that perimeter players have to emulate to some degree if they are to replicate the success of great big men. That's why the saying doesn't go "volume three-point shooters win games" as much as you would like to suggest otherwise.

I've never heard that quote or even anything like it applied to the game of basketball. Further, as part of basketball theory/practice there is no bias towards big men to win games on the offensive end. It's easy enough to look at PHX w/o Amare, Denver, and GS to see that one doesn't need a large amount of any of those things to win games. If you're looking for someone who won a title then we can continue with the Detroit Pistons and their complete lack of a post presence (offensively).

Also, you're just lying to yourself (as usual) in order to make up that last sentence because I never even implied anything of the sort.

[Jordan23Forever]

You've never heard "big men win basketball games" or some variant? Wow...

If you're looking for someone who won a title then we can continue with the Detroit Pistons and their complete lack of a post presence (offensively).

Yes, let's just look at the one "sum of many parts" model team that has won a title in the last 20 years as evidence and ignore the fact that 8 of the last 9 titles have featured Shaq or Duncan. And -- surprise -- the one non-big man led team that won (Heat) had a player who did a lot of what I mentioned (drawing fouls, drawing defenders through penetration to make plays for others etc.) due to his style of play.

[Dynamos]

Pau Gasol

[eatyourchildren]

J23F,

The biggest problem i have with your assertion is that shooting more than 4 3's a game means you're less aggressive going to the basket. That's at most 2 baskets that *could* be drives, but they *could* be anything else anyway.

Besides, that's no fundamental error with TS%. It's a limitation on extrapolation, just like any other stat. At least with TS% you know its limitations, unlike PER which not only incorporates TS% but a host of other hollinger-weighted variables.

[tkb]

Pau Gasol

?

He was 6th highest in the entire league as a member of the Lakers (22nd if you count his Memphis days).

[Paydro70]

You've never heard "big men win basketball games" or some variant? Wow...

If you're looking for someone who won a title then we can continue with the Detroit Pistons and their complete lack of a post presence (offensively).

Yes, let's just look at the one "sum of many parts" model team that has won a title in the last 20 years as evidence and ignore the fact that 8 of the last 9 titles have featured Shaq or Duncan. And -- surprise -- the one non-big man led team that won (Heat) had a player who did a lot of what I mentioned (drawing fouls, drawing defenders through penetration to make plays for others etc.) due to his style of play.

It's more than a little ironic that a player named "Jordan23Forever" argues that it's impossible to win a title without a big-man leading the way.

[Jordan23Forever]

It's more than a little ironic that a player named "Jordan23Forever" argues that it's impossible to win a title without a big-man leading the way.

If you could read properly, you would realize that I said nothing of the sort. All I said was that non-big man led teams need to have their star player perform many of the same functions that great big men do on offense (drawing fouls, drawing defenders to get others easier looks through penetration or post play, getting high percentage shots for themselves etc.), and that jacking an excessive amount of threes does not accomplish any of that.

[Captain_Morgan]

I don't care. T-mac is the worst.