Josh Smith and Monta Ellis got screwed! (again...)

[betta1]

deng has a better TS% than josh smith. that's all i've been saying. josh smith actually hurts his team offensively by taking bad shots, which leave him with a low TS%. it doesn't matter how many points you score if you're not doing it efficiently

Again, TS% is based on a completely arbitrary factor of .44 in its formula. Why not .35? .87? Not a measure of much other than bored statisticians.

you don't know what you're talking about. it's an exact formula. FTs are the equivalent of approximately half a field goal attempt. altered slightly from .50 due to 3 point plays

TS% is no more "made up" than FG%. TS% just tells a bigger story. PER is a "made up" statistic that is dependent on an individual interpretation of which statistics should be weighted more than others

Love it when people prove my point without me having to type anything at all.

[Rapcity_11]

You're right, I don't.

Now, how about you respond with something other than bland attempts to insult and explain to all of us the magic behind the (rational, is it?) .44 factor in computing TS%?

We'll wait right over here for your enlightening response.

"The .44 multiplier is because not all free throws take up a possession. Technical foul shots and "and-ones" do not, while there are more than two free throws on one possession with a three-shot foul. Research has determined that about 44% of all free throws take up possessions, thus .44 is used as the multiplier."

AKA, not arbitrary.

Google is your friend, by the way.

[betta1]

You're right, I don't.

Now, how about you respond with something other than bland attempts to insult and explain to all of us the magic behind the (rational, is it?) .44 factor in computing TS%?

We'll wait right over here for your enlightening response.

"The .44 multiplier is because not all free throws take up a possession. Technical foul shots and "and-ones" do not, while there are more than two free throws on one possession with a three-shot foul. Research has determined that about 44% of all free throws take up possessions, thus .44 is used as the multiplier."

AKA, not arbitrary.

Google is your friend, by the way.

We all know that it's a determined number. Doesn't mean it's not arbitrary.

Noble try though.

[dice]

Again, TS% is based on a completely arbitrary factor of .44 in its formula. Why not .35? .87? Not a measure of much other than bored statisticians.

you don't know what you're talking about. it's an exact formula. FTs are the equivalent of approximately half a field goal attempt. altered slightly from .50 due to 3 point plays

TS% is no more "made up" than FG%. TS% just tells a bigger story. PER is a "made up" statistic that is dependent on an individual interpretation of which statistics should be weighted more than others

Love it when people prove my point without me having to type anything at all.

good god

i didn't prove your point. .44 is an exact calculated figure. i simply stated that it is approximately the generic .50 that one would expect

arbitrary means random, like pulled out of a hat. the .44 number is determined scientifically, not arbitrarily

[mysticbb]

Now. how about you respond with something other than bland attempts to insult and explain to all us the magic behind the (rational, is it?) .44 factor in computing TS%?

The 0.44 gives the best approximation for the true shooting attempts, that value is NOT arbitrary at all. For some players it might be closer to 0.4 and for others closer to 0.5 (Josh Smith for example, who actually get a small plus by using 0.44*FTA instead of his real amount of true shooting attempts). That value is lower than 0.5, because sometimes players are getting awarded 3 FTA for one true shooting attempt, or they get an And1 or they are taking the technical free throws. But overall for the league in average 0.44 works best.

Rapcity_11, yes, Smith is also really good, nobody should deny that, but overall Deng is just better. And you are completely right, making it a boxscore stats debate is pretty much useless, because DengÄs best abilities to help his team winning are not captured by the boxscore. His defensive stats in the boxscore are not showing his real defensive impact.

Edit: Well, 3 people have now explained it, maybe it helps. :)

[betta1]

i didn't prove your point. .44 is an exact calculated figure. i simply stated that it is approximately the generic .50 that one would expect

arbitrary means random, like pulled out of a hat. the .44 number is determined scientifically, not arbitrarily

LOL. Way to backtrack. That's not at all what you stated.

[Rapcity_11]

We all know that it's a determined number. Doesn't mean it's not arbitrary.

Actually, that's exactly what it means.

[dice]

i didn't prove your point. .44 is an exact calculated figure. i simply stated that it is approximately the generic .50 that one would expect

arbitrary means random, like pulled out of a hat. the .44 number is determined scientifically, not arbitrarily

LOL. Way to backtrack. That's not at all what you stated.

LOL it is LOL you read what i said wrong LOL

LOL

plenty of people use TS% knowing that it is very precise. because they know how it is determined. multiple people have tried to enlighten you and you continue to stubbornly stick to your false perception

do you know the formula for PER? very complicated and arbitrary. but one of the factors it uses that is NOT arbitrary? the same .44 number that TS% uses!!!

[betta1]

We all know that it's a determined number. Doesn't mean it's not arbitrary.

Actually, that's exactly what it means.

Again, it's based on an estimate. Nobody takes that sort of stat seriously.

[dice]

We all know that it's a determined number. Doesn't mean it's not arbitrary.

Actually, that's exactly what it means.

Again, it's based on an estimate. Nobody takes that sort of stat seriously.

nobody except educated stats people

[betta1]

i didn't prove your point. .44 is an exact calculated figure. i simply stated that it is approximately the generic .50 that one would expect

arbitrary means random, like pulled out of a hat. the .44 number is determined scientifically, not arbitrarily

LOL. Way to backtrack. That's not at all what you stated.

LOL it is LOL you read what i said wrong LOL

LOL

plenty of people use TS% knowing that it is very precise. because they know how it is determined. multiple people have tried to enlighten you and you continue to stubbornly stick to your false perception

do you know the formula for PER? very complicated and arbitrary. but one of the factors it uses that is NOT arbitrary? the same .44 number that TS% uses!!!

You seem to be the one doing a fine job embarrassing yourself by this desperate clinging to the one factor that would show Deng to be in the same league as Smith. It so happens to be a stat cooked up so much that it's rendered meaningless when applied in the real world.

Also, we're talking about TS% here and not PER.

[Rapcity_11]

We all know that it's a determined number. Doesn't mean it's not arbitrary.

Actually, that's exactly what it means.

Again, it's based on an estimate. Nobody takes that sort of stat seriously.

You really don't know what arbitrary means, do you?

Nobody takes it seriously? Think again buddy.

[betta1]

You really don't know what arbitrary means, do you?

Nobody takes it seriously? Think again buddy.

I really don't, though you did a fine job proving to all that .44 is a logical number!

Arbitrary stat is arbitrary. Go figure.

[dice]

You really don't know what arbitrary means, do you?

Nobody takes it seriously? Think again buddy.

I really don't, though you did a fine job proving to all that .44 is a logical number!

Arbitrary stat is arbitrary. Go figure.

and you STILL don't know what arbitrary means

[betta1]

You really don't know what arbitrary means, do you?

Nobody takes it seriously? Think again buddy.

I really don't, though you did a fine job proving to all that .44 is a logical number!

Arbitrary stat is arbitrary. Go figure.

and you STILL don't know what arbitrary means

Nice diversion. Not gonna cut it. TS% is as bogus as it gets. You've already proven that.

[dice]

you did a fine job proving to all that .44 is a logical number!

Arbitrary stat is arbitrary. Go figure.

and you STILL don't know what arbitrary means

Nice diversion. Not gonna cut it. TS% is as bogus as it gets. You've already proven that.

multiple people have attempted to explain to you something that others pick up rather quickly. but it's obvious at this point you're not trying to educate yourself. you're intentionally wasting peoples' time

[betta1]

If you're going to look at scoring efficiency numbers, the more accurate one is always efg%. Though, even that is also a somewhat flawed formula. Nonetheless, it at least keeps the bogus factors like .44 of TS% out of the equation.

[betta1]

multiple people have attempted to explain to you something that others pick up rather quickly. but it's obvious at this point you're not trying to educate yourself. you're intentionally wasting peoples' time

I think someone is just bitter their team lost.

Enjoy Mr. Efficiency.

[mysticbb]

If you're going to look at scoring efficiency numbers, the more accurate one is always efg%. Though, even that is also a somewhat flawed formula. Nonetheless, it at least keeps the bogus factors like .44 of TS% out of the equation.

Do you even realize, that Smith's true shooting percentage, if all true shooting attempts are correctly counted would be even WORSE than it is now by using 0.44? Do you understand that this actually HELPS a guy like Smith to look a bit more efficient than he really is?

And again, there is NOTHING arbitrary about that coefficient at all. If you don't believe it, make the research yourself. It is the best possible approximation of the true shooting attempts, that is the reason for it.

eFG% is only part of the equation. Or do you think that points made by free throws are counting differently like being worth less than other points scored?

[betta1]

If you're going to look at scoring efficiency numbers, the more accurate one is always efg%. Though, even that is also a somewhat flawed formula. Nonetheless, it at least keeps the bogus factors like .44 of TS% out of the equation.

Do you even realize, that Smith's true shooting percentage, if all true shooting attempts are correctly counted would be even WORSE than it is now by using 0.44? Do you understand that this actually HELPS a guy like Smith to look a bit more efficient than he really is?

And again, there is NOTHING arbitrary about that coefficient at all. If you don't believe it, make the research yourself. It is the best possible approximation of the true shooting attempts, that is the reason for it.

eFG% is only part of the equation. Or do you think that points made by free throws are counting differently like being worth less than other points scored?

The coefficient is a number they arrived at, yes, but it is still based on guess work in the end.

Not sure what you're getting at. If the factor were to be >.44 it would hurt players with higher FT%. So what.

If you use stats that don't make use of such artificial skewing- FG%, FT%, 3PM, eFG%- you get a much more accurate picture and are working strictly with the actual raw data.