Rank the best shooting stats

[Precision9]

I want to know what you guys think are the best shooting stats in the NBA right now.

so...

eFG%, TS%, FG%, AFG%, pps, which one is the best at determining shooting efficiency?

I think PPS and TS% are essentially the same but I read a post somewhere by Doctor MJ saying how a player that goes 2/2 in the line is better than a player that finishes an And-1 and makes his 1/1 FT. So obviously there is some flaw to that. My problem with TS% is how it doesn't really account miss shots as much as it should. eFG% is a good stat for perimeter players, but virtually useless for big men like Dwight Howard, Carlos Boozer, Blake Griffin, etc. I have never used aFG% nor have I ever seen anyone else do it, so I'm assuming that isn't the best stat.

Which one is the best? I see TS% the most, so I'm assuming most of you believe that is the best, but could you rank all of them?

[Nivek]

I want to know what you guys think are the best shooting stats in the NBA right now.

so...

eFG%, TS%, FG%, AFG%, pps, which one is the best at determining shooting efficiency?

I think PPS and TS% are essentially the same but I read a post somewhere by Doctor MJ saying how a player that goes 2/2 in the line is better than a player that finishes an And-1 and makes his 1/1 FT. So obviously there is some flaw to that. My problem with TS% is how it doesn't really account miss shots as much as it should. eFG% is a good stat for perimeter players, but virtually useless for big men like Dwight Howard, Carlos Boozer, Blake Griffin, etc. I have never used aFG% nor have I ever seen anyone else do it, so I'm assuming that isn't the best stat.

Which one is the best? I see TS% the most, so I'm assuming most of you believe that is the best, but could you rank all of them?

TS% is good for what it does, which is to combine efficiency from the field with efficiency from the line. I prefer to look at those numbers separately, so I don't use TS% much. But it's a good stat.

Your statement that eFG is "...a good stat for perimeter players, but virtually useless for big men like Dwight Howard, Carlos Boozer, Blake Griffin, etc." is incorrect. efg puts every player on equal footing when looking at shooting efficiency from the field. It's a recognition of the reality that 3 is more than 2. If a player has only 2pt FGAs, his efg is identical to FG%.

FG% is still okay, but it became out-of-date the moment the 3pt shot entered the league. Because 3>2.

PPS is basically TS%, depending on the formula being used.

I've been part of the advanced stats "community" for a long time now, and I don't know what AFG% is.

Ranking of the measures based on what I use:

1. eFG
2. FT%
3. TS%
4. FG%

I don't use PPS or AFG. If I want a PPS measure, I use TS%.

[Wannabe MEP]

1) I agree with pretty much everything Nivek said.

2) Pretty sure that AFG%, or adjusted field goal percentage, is exactly the same thing as eFG%. It's calculated slightly differently, but you should end up with the exact same result (unless I'm missing something??). The purpose of both is to translate FG% to account for 3-pointers.

TS% is good for what it does, which is to combine efficiency from the field with efficiency from the line. I prefer to look at those numbers separately, so I don't use TS% much.

3) I do use TS%, so it's at the top of my list. I would add that it incorporates the value of getting to the line, not just the efficiency once there. Aggressive drivers that get to the line frequently have great TS%, which ultimately helps their teams score efficiently. That doesn't show up in eFG% or FG%.

So, my list would be:

1) TS%
2) Going more in-depth (by looking at shot locations, for example): http://hoopdata.com/shotstats.aspx
3) eFG%/AFG%
[ . . . ]
37) FG% (why even look at this???)

[Incubus13]

Nivek explained it all. Nothing more to add.

Anyway. This is my list:
1. eFG%
2. FG%
3. TS%

[Wannabe MEP]

I'm not sure why people wouldn't use TS% (unless of course you're going to break it down and use several different stats together to get a more detailed picture of the same thing, as Nivek suggested). While it's true that TS% has slight approximation to it, it's still by far the most accurate single measure of scoring efficiency.

Let's talk accuracy and precision ( to the appropriately named OP).

--eFG% is 100% precise for what it measures, but see B on the chart: it isn't truly accurate. If we want to know how efficient a player is at scoring the basketball, why in the world would we not include free throws??
--TS% is BY FAR the most accurate measure we have. The precision is less than 100%...but it's like 99.8%. That slight variation in precision has no impact on the accuracy.
--FG% isn't even hitting the target.

Getting to the free throw line is a big deal: ask Dwyane Wade, Chauncey Billups, Kevin Martin, Danilo Gallinari, Ramon Sessions, Corey Maggette, Russell Westbrook, Devin Harris, and James Harden. All of these guys have a MUCH better TS% than eFG% because they get to the line frequently and convert at a high rate. Wade has scored over 25% of his career points from the stripe. If you don't factor that in, he's merely an average scorer.

Lat year OKC was 4th in offensive efficiency, 5th in TS%, and 12th in eFG%: eFG% severely underrates their scoring efficiency because it doesn't take into account their free throws (3rd best at getting to the line and 1st at converting).

My problem with TS% is how it doesn't really account miss shots as much as it should.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Care to explain?

[Nivek]

If I'm looking at efficiency, I use TS% or DeanO's ortg. If I'm looking strictly at shooting, I start with efg because I want to know how good a shooter the guy is from the floor. Then I look at FT% and free throw rate to see how often he draws fouls and gets to the line. Eventually I might look at TS%, but by then I usually already know what I want to know. If I'm looking for a single number that gets at overall efficiency, I generally use ortg.

[Incubus13]

If I'm looking at efficiency, I use TS% or DeanO's ortg. If I'm looking strictly at shooting, I start with efg because I want to know how good a shooter the guy is from the floor. Then I look at FT% and free throw rate to see how often he draws fouls and gets to the line. Eventually I might look at TS%, but by then I usually already know what I want to know. If I'm looking for a single number that gets at overall efficiency, I generally use ortg.

The bolded part is the reason why I rank eFG over TS.

[Precision9]

If I'm looking at efficiency, I use TS% or DeanO's ortg. If I'm looking strictly at shooting, I start with efg because I want to know how good a shooter the guy is from the floor. Then I look at FT% and free throw rate to see how often he draws fouls and gets to the line. Eventually I might look at TS%, but by then I usually already know what I want to know. If I'm looking for a single number that gets at overall efficiency, I generally use ortg.

It's kind of a sloppy/lazy stat though if you ask me. Team O and D rating is good, but I don't know about individual. I don't mess with things like PER, Win Shares, and individual O and D rating mainly because they are lazy if you ask me, not PER, but PER is the furthest thing from telling us the whole story.

[Wannabe MEP]

We're really talking about three different things:
1) A player's effectiveness at "shooting," by which we really mean "shooting."
2) A player's effectiveness at "shooting," by which we really mean "scoring."
3) A player's effectiveness overall on offense.

I think, without realizing it, we actually usually do mean #2. If that is the case, then TS% wins easily.

#3 is extremely complicated and doesn't fit this discussion, but I want to make it very clear that this is NOT TS%: overall offensive efficiency is not the same thing as shooting/scoring efficiency. This is ORtg, or offensive RAPM/APM, or maybe PER, or...whatever other complex efficiency stat that you're into.

Now, if we really want to say #1, as in "shooting" without meaning "scoring" in general...then I have no idea which stat we should use. This one is ultimately arbitrary. When you say that a player is a "good shooter" in this context, you are probably talking about someone who knocks down jumpers and free throws and (probably) threes. Not Shaq, right?? But I don't care which of these metrics you use: FG%, eFG%, or TS%, the best "shooters" in the league by these metrics are guys that dunk a lot. Mostly tall centers that stay close to the rim and dunk whenever possible. So if you don't mean dunks, what do you mean? Where is the line? You could simplify and talk about just 3-pointers, perhaps, or just free throws, but those don't really get at what we want, do they? Would you want to count layups? Short floaters? This process is arbitrary. I did sort of like what Hollinger did when he ranked the best shooters of the 3-point era, but if you know what I'm talking about, you had to admit that it was obviously somewhat arbitrary.

My point is that none of these metrics really get at #1, pure "shooting." And it's actually pretty ridiculous when talking about this kind of thing to eliminate shots that help teams the most, like dunks and free-throws.

Ergo, we are (should be?) really talking about SCORING, not pure "shooting." And in that conversation TS% wins. (with the ongoing caveat that you could of course do a more detailed cumulative version of your own analysis that looks at more of these factors separately)

[EvanZ]

I wrote a fairly extensive series on a new scoring metric recently:

http://www.goldenstateofmind.com/2011/1 ... le-scorers

[SideshowBob]

Evan do you think you could run this for past seasons as well?

[EvanZ]

Evan do you think you could run this for past seasons as well?

I only have good PBP data for the last two seasons.

[230MVP]

TS% is an overrated and overused stat.

it's good to use but only with proper context.

For example I'd much rather have a player (Player A) with X TS% who shoots a high % from the Field (FG%) and a lower % from the line (FT%) then a player (Player B) with the same X TS% who shoots a very high % from the line but a mediocre % from the Field (FG%).

Player B is far more reliant on luck of the draw and the refs then Player A.
Player A can produce offense no matter what and wont be shutdown if the refs swallow their whistles or decide to call the game differently.

[Paydro70]

I don't think there's much reason to believe that drawing fouls is "luck of the draw." It's a very consistent skill.

[Wannabe MEP]

I can see why a Shaq-homer wouldn't be a big fan of TS%.

[EvanZ]

[230MVP]

I can see why a Shaq-homer wouldn't be a big fan of TS%.

Shaq's TS% has been consistently good 56-57%+ his entire Career.
He is #1 All-Time in FG%

Unlike Most Perimeter Players who magically started reaching that level after the Rule Changes in 05 he was always that efficient.

It's just a fact that the Ref's have changed the way they call foul's specifically on perimeter players but even now they are far from always consistent in the way they call games and sometimes swallow their whistles.

So yes its far more valuable to shoot a higher % from the Field then to shoot it from the Line.

Both are valuable obviously but one is specifically more valuable in my opinion.

[SideshowBob]

I only have good PBP data for the last two seasons.

Even just last season would be great. Would it be a lot more work on your part to run the numbers for last season? If so, then never mind.

[EvanZ]

I only have good PBP data for the last two seasons.

Even just last season would be great. Would it be a lot more work on your part to run the numbers for last season? If so, then never mind.

It's quite a bit of work. I'll do it at some point, though.

[SideshowBob]

Okay then, never mind. I was just curious