Is Enes Kanter 'figuring it out?'

[erudite23]

Oops, my bad. That was just players over 6'8". Add Tony Parker, Chris Paul and James Harden to the list.

[StocktonShorts]

And look how boss he looks signing autographs:

http://twitter.com/DJJazzyJody/status/3 ... 88/photo/1

[Ming Kong!]

And look how boss he looks signing autographs:

http://twitter.com/DJJazzyJody/status/3 ... 88/photo/1

LMAO love it

[LongLiveIverson]

If you guys got a huge offer would you consider moving him?

Evan Turner, 10th pick, Arnett Moultrie For Enes Kanter and a filler

Moultrie is a young 4 who can play alongside Favors. Turner gives you a starting wing who plays defense, rebounds and can play a point forward role to play with shooters like Hayward and Burks. With 2 first round picks in the lottery you can possibly use them to trade up in the top 6 for Marcus Smart.

[reapaman]

Erudite I understand where you and everyone else is coming from but based on your statement it still doesn't look like you know where I stand. I'll just say this and end it for now. Last summer, You accepted a bet with me about whether Favors and also haywards FG% would drop this season. Correct me if I'm wrong but you said they both wouldn't drop because you believed they had turned the corner based on their late season surges. I said they would drop because they had too many major flaws to sustain that level of play consistently (and guys don't improve major flaws as fast as many people want to bealieve) and those late season surges that many young players have eventually stop happening (some players are exceptions I know, mabey enes is one of em).

So basically I said, if I take that late season surge out then what do I get (and this disregarding whether or not they are playing versus starters or not). And so far they have both dropped and thats with any improvements they made over the past year. Sure they could go on a late season tear starting tommorow but this time last year they were on late season surges (and hayward was on a late season surge the year before that) and you can't count on that. Guys have random good and bad stretches all the time throughout the season but its those crazy late season ones thats typically always on cue right after the allstar break by young guys that always skews the numbers.

Sure you might say enes is different or those two are being held back by corbin so thats why there numbers dropped or whatever but the point I'm making is that imo your making the same mistake. Before the bucks game, if you read some of the threads it was quiet about enes and you saw alot of dought about his overall potential but all of a sudden the temple of kanter worshippers are back in full force and theirs no dought about it now. Opinions should never change that fast and if they do you should be skeptical. For the most part before this stretch, he had been consistently inconsistent and not bad but no where near what he is doing now. I don't even think that the enes before this stretch is quite the current enes but thats besides the point. I understand the what his numbers repesent and all that but all I'm saying is that the real enes is not what your seeing now imo and you will be dissapointed if your expecting anywhere near this level of production consistently next year just like you didn't get it after all the hoopla that was the pre-season.

As for the TS% and usage combo you put, you already know I despise TS% but I'll still say its impressive although amare being up there and mcgee being close made me cringe. I think Orating and usage combo makes more sense which puts 4 of our guys in the top 50 including enes (our guys are actually high on alot of these stats, why are we not better?) but thats just me (not trying to change the argument but orating is a better stat and the guys up there make alot more sense).

With all that said he does look boss in the picture and women looks like she's trying to keep from springing a leak.

[Litany]

If you guys got a huge offer would you consider moving him?

Evan Turner, 10th pick, Arnett Moultrie For Enes Kanter and a filler

Moultrie is a young 4 who can play alongside Favors. Turner gives you a starting wing who plays defense, rebounds and can play a point forward role to play with shooters like Hayward and Burks. With 2 first round picks in the lottery you can possibly use them to trade up in the top 6 for Marcus Smart.

Not a chance in hell. He's here to stay.

[Hoops Addict]

And look how boss he looks signing autographs:

http://twitter.com/DJJazzyJody/status/3 ... 88/photo/1

Keep it going playboy......get those numbers with your bad self and pimp hat!!!!

If you dont like Kanter, I do not want to be your friend. He seems like a very happy guy who is having a good time, does not complain, is a good team mate, and enjoying being 21 and making $4M a year.

I knew he would score well ifgiven the opportunity to shoot. Playing with Jefferson and Milsap does not give you too many shots. Now that he can shoot he is scoring 18PPG and playing well.

The UnderKanter is Pimp Boss.

[RyanStorm]

If there was any wet seal in all the ocean who knows how to absorb heat on the rock, its Enes the Menace aka The Terminator Turkey .....

Difference between him and Al is, Enes is in his 2nd full year in NBA and the first was 66 games(his total minutes and experience are the only thing separating him and Howard/Staudmire/etc)...imagine what he will be like after next year with our new future coach who takes on Sloans and Layden's legacy(not one who will pervert it)...

Jefferson is beyond his prime and he isn't that good at all, not for this team, we shouldn't have been in the playoffs all year hadn't it been for DAL, LAL and MIN having lots of injuries.

[RyanStorm]

If Kanter isn't the next God of Thunder, than name someone who is??

[Inigo Montoya]

If you guys got a huge offer would you consider moving him?

Evan Turner, 10th pick, Arnett Moultrie For Enes Kanter and a filler

Moultrie is a young 4 who can play alongside Favors. Turner gives you a starting wing who plays defense, rebounds and can play a point forward role to play with shooters like Hayward and Burks. With 2 first round picks in the lottery you can possibly use them to trade up in the top 6 for Marcus Smart.

that's not a huge offer. kanter was the 3rd pick, and you're giving us the 10th in a weak draft, so that's a downgrade. moultrie really haven't proved anything yet, and he'll be a nice rotation player at best. and turner is a guy philly is trying to get rid of, a guy that was drafted too high as have disappointed (relatively). and i'm guessing that part of the reason philly is willing to include him in trades is that they don't want to give him a big contract when his rookie deal is up, which is soon.

it's not a huge offer, it's somewhere between an "ok" offer and a "meh" offer.

[Inigo Montoya]

Before the bucks game, if you read some of the threads it was quiet about enes and you saw alot of dought about his overall potential but all of a sudden the temple of kanter worshippers are back in full force and theirs no dought about it now. Opinions should never change that fast and if they do you should be skeptical.

before the bobcats game kanter didn't get enough of a chance to make a difference, so kanter supporters had nothing to write about, one way or the other. but since that game due to his play he almost forced corbin to give him a bit more minutes, and the injuries to millsap also boosted up his minutes, so now there is something to talk about, one way or the other. and his play leaves plenty of reasons for optimism. there is\was no use of saying how great kanter is when he doesn't get the chance to show it and prove it (thanks again for that, corbin). it doesn't mean people changed their minds. but if people would say how good kanter is when he's hardly getting minutes, the obvious rebuttal would be that "he can't be that good if he can't get off the bench".

[erudite23]

Erudite I understand where you and everyone else is coming from but based on your statement it still doesn't look like you know where I stand. I'll just say this and end it for now. Last summer, You accepted a bet with me about whether Favors and also haywards FG% would drop this season. Correct me if I'm wrong but you said they both wouldn't drop because you believed they had turned the corner based on their late season surges. I said they would drop because they had too many major flaws to sustain that level of play consistently (and guys don't improve major flaws as fast as many people want to bealieve) and those late season surges that many young players have eventually stop happening (some players are exceptions I know, mabey enes is one of em).

So basically I said, if I take that late season surge out then what do I get (and this disregarding whether or not they are playing versus starters or not). And so far they have both dropped and thats with any improvements they made over the past year. Sure they could go on a late season tear starting tommorow but this time last year they were on late season surges (and hayward was on a late season surge the year before that) and you can't count on that. Guys have random good and bad stretches all the time throughout the season but its those crazy late season ones thats typically always on cue right after the allstar break by young guys that always skews the numbers.

Sure you might say enes is different or those two are being held back by corbin so thats why there numbers dropped or whatever but the point I'm making is that imo your making the same mistake. Before the bucks game, if you read some of the threads it was quiet about enes and you saw alot of dought about his overall potential but all of a sudden the temple of kanter worshippers are back in full force and theirs no dought about it now. Opinions should never change that fast and if they do you should be skeptical. For the most part before this stretch, he had been consistently inconsistent and not bad but no where near what he is doing now. I don't even think that the enes before this stretch is quite the current enes but thats besides the point. I understand the what his numbers repesent and all that but all I'm saying is that the real enes is not what your seeing now imo and you will be dissapointed if your expecting anywhere near this level of production consistently next year just like you didn't get it after all the hoopla that was the pre-season.

As for the TS% and usage combo you put, you already know I despise TS% but I'll still say its impressive although amare being up there and mcgee being close made me cringe. I think Orating and usage combo makes more sense which puts 4 of our guys in the top 50 including enes (our guys are actually high on alot of these stats, why are we not better?) but thats just me (not trying to change the argument but orating is a better stat and the guys up there make alot more sense).

With all that said he does look boss in the picture and women looks like she's trying to keep from springing a leak.

This might be the most well thought out and articulate post you've made, and I think its worthy of a response. Not saying that much, but still.


Nowhere in any of what I said did I attempt to guarantee any number of any sort. What I did say is that he's arrived. He's an NBA player and there is no denying it. There were plenty of people pre-draft saying that he would wash out and that he was a bust in waiting. Givony of DX was VERY passionate about his opinion that Kanter was not an NBA quality player, and staked his reputation (ugh) on Bismack Biyombo being a future star and a much better overall prospect than Enes Kanter.

Those opinions have been proven wrong. He's an NBA player and its undeniable.


I would like to challenge your assertion that no one was talking about him before the Bucks game. I've been watching him closely all season and have created a few threads to encourage discussion around what he's been doing. He started off horribly. Horribly. I can't emphasize that enough. But since that first few weeks or a month, he's been climbing, and its been steady. Its not like he was just in a rut and not improving. He's been showing steady improvement throughout the season. This jump was simply more of the same, but on steroids.

He's 20 years old and he still isn't getting a lot of PT. What he HAS shown is that the more of it he gets, regardless of whether its against starters or bench guys, the better he plays. I'm confident we'll continue to see that.


As for your quibbles with TS%, I am glad to hear that you hate math. It makes a lot of sense to me that you would, and validates my opinion on the matter. Good talk.

[StocktonShorts]

^^ I'm not sure how saying O-Rating is a better stat the TS% translates to him saying he hates math. There's a lot more math involved in calculating an O-Rating than TS%.

[reapaman]

I just don't like TS% because it kills the guys who are primarily jump shooters who don't get superstar calls. Guys like Randolph, Aldridge and even Ryan Anderson always have very low TS% yet we all know they are really good offensive players. Just isn't right.

[erudite23]

Zach Randolph:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... oza01.html

Ryan Anderson:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... rry01.html

LaMarcus Aldridge:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... ila01.html


First of all, that is not true. Ryan Anderson's TS is phenomenal and is his single best attribute. Zach Randolph has been all over the place, but has had a few seasons of good TS mixed in with some horrible ones. Aldridge is middle of the road, with one particularly good season (over 56% TS) mixed in.

TS does exactly what it was meant to do in describing these three players' games. Anderson is an ultra effecient big guy who benefits from making a ton of 3 pointers, which is why his TS is so high. Aldridge is a jump shooting big man who converts at a mediocre rate and is not a particularly efficient scorer. Randolph is mostly a volume scorer who is not that good of an offensive player.

So it does its job.

The missing piece in your understanding is the value of creating a shot. All three of these players have value because they create shots without costing you turn overs. Aldridge is one of the least TO prone players in the league, sporting a TO rate of under 9 every year of his career but one. Anderson has been even better, keeping his numbers under 8 for 3 straight seasons. Randolph is not as efficient, as his hovers around 10, which is still better than average.

Enes Kanter, meanwhile, has had a TO rate OVER 20. Think about that.

Typically, TS% and TOs operate inversely proportionate to one another. The reason for this is that its usually easier to make a shot the closer you get to the hoop. But that real estate is closely defended so you risk losing the ball in attempting to get it there. So some players settle for Js--which convert at a lower rate--and some are obsessed with getting to the hoop, where they convert much higher but turn the ball over far more.

Aldridge and Randolph both specialize in creating mediocre shots without much cost in turn overs. That is also Al Jefferson's primary value. Ryan Anderson is a lethal jumpshooter who can score efficiently from range, but he has to have someone to set him up, so he can't create a ton of looks on his own power.

So you see the different skill sets and the value they bring. None of these players is an elite player, because they cannot create high percentage plays on their own without turning it over. Which is exactly what advanced stats, and TS% specifically, are designed to tell us. There is a reason LeBron and Kevin Durant are running at TS of 60%+ with TO rates around 10 and usage rates over 30. That is an elite, All-Time type player. Very few players have ever done that.

What TS does is expose high usage players who are not efficient in secondary things. Like Al Jefferson. His 49% FG percentage might seem pretty good. But the fact that he does not get to the line and does not make any 3s means that that 49% is about all you're getting. However, he can get you a middle-of-the-road shot whenever he wants, as he is historically good at limiting turnovers. Which gives him legitimate offensive value. Its actually his defense that makes him fatally flawed as a lead dog on a contending team.

TS is invaluable in giving us one consistent number to facilitate apples-to-apples comparisons between two different types of scorers. You just have to understand how it interacts with other numbers--in this case usage rate and TO rate--in order to properly understand what it tells you.

[erudite23]

^^ I'm not sure how saying O-Rating is a better stat the TS% translates to him saying he hates math. There's a lot more math involved in calculating an O-Rating than TS%.

Because he has no clue how ORTG works and that's why he believes in it. ORTG is laughably bad at measuring a player's offensive worth, because it only takes efficiency into account. It doesn't have a measure for quantity at all, so it will tell you that Tyson Chandler is the best player in the NBA because he shoots 70% from the field. Its ridiculous.


TS% is just math. It takes the mathematical value of a 3 pointer--ie 50% greater than a 2 pointer--and factors it in. Then it does the same for FTs (one FT attempt is worth half a fg attempt) with an adjustment factored in for and1s to normalize it. That's all TS is. Simple math.


ORTG is a formula with perceived values and arbitrary weights built into it, much like PER. So its not just math.

[StocktonShorts]

^^ I'm not sure how saying O-Rating is a better stat the TS% translates to him saying he hates math. There's a lot more math involved in calculating an O-Rating than TS%.

Because he has no clue how ORTG works and that's why he believes in it. ORTG is laughably bad at measuring a player's offensive worth, because it only takes efficiency into account. It doesn't have a measure for quantity at all, so it will tell you that Tyson Chandler is the best player in the NBA because he shoots 70% from the field. Its ridiculous.


TS% is just math. It takes the mathematical value of a 3 pointer--ie 50% greater than a 2 pointer--and factors it in. Then it does the same for FTs (one FT attempt is worth half a fg attempt) with an adjustment factored in for and1s to normalize it. That's all TS is. Simple math.


ORTG is a formula with perceived values and arbitrary weights built into it, much like PER. So its not just math.

How does TS% account for quantity better than O-Rating? You've lost me.

TS% = As you indicate, it's roughly a measure of points made per shot attempt

O-Rating (for a player) = a measure of points produced per 100 possessions used by that player. I view it as a logical extension of TS% that attempts to account for points produced from assists and offensive rebounds while penalizing a player for turnovers.

Tyson Chandler is leading the NBA in both TS% and Offensive-Rating (http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... dty01.html), so I'm not sure what you were trying to say by referencing him.

I haven't done the analysis (yet) but I suspect there is a very strong correlation between O-rating and TS% for the majority of NBA players with some predictable exceptions (I think pass-first point guards will have a higher O-rating).

[erudite23]

^^ I'm not sure how saying O-Rating is a better stat the TS% translates to him saying he hates math. There's a lot more math involved in calculating an O-Rating than TS%.

Because he has no clue how ORTG works and that's why he believes in it. ORTG is laughably bad at measuring a player's offensive worth, because it only takes efficiency into account. It doesn't have a measure for quantity at all, so it will tell you that Tyson Chandler is the best player in the NBA because he shoots 70% from the field. Its ridiculous.


TS% is just math. It takes the mathematical value of a 3 pointer--ie 50% greater than a 2 pointer--and factors it in. Then it does the same for FTs (one FT attempt is worth half a fg attempt) with an adjustment factored in for and1s to normalize it. That's all TS is. Simple math.


ORTG is a formula with perceived values and arbitrary weights built into it, much like PER. So its not just math.

How does TS% account for quantity better than O-Rating? You've lost me.

TS% = As you indicate, it's roughly a measure of points made per shot attempt

O-Rating (for a player) = a measure of points produced per 100 possessions used by that player. I view it as a logical extension of TS% that attempts to account for points produced from assists and offensive rebounds while penalizing a player for turnovers.

Tyson Chandler is leading the NBA in both TS% and Offensive-Rating (http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... dty01.html), so I'm not sure what you were trying to say by referencing him.

I haven't done the analysis (yet) but I suspect there is a very strong correlation between O-rating and TS% for the majority of NBA players with some predictable exceptions (I think pass-first point guards will have a higher O-rating).

That's right. So what it determines is the value of an offensive rebound, the value of an assist and the value of a turnover, all of which are a bit hazy.

But the biggest problem I have with it is that it passes itself off as a measure of the offensive ability of that player. It's a rating. X player is X good at offense.

TS% just gives you a very black and white measure of how a person converts shots into points. It doesn't pretend to be more than it is. There isn't a subjective element to it.

Obviously pass first point guards are great examples of where ORTG goes wrong, as well as big men who only dunk the ball and have a high offensive rebounding rate.

The point is, its far more 'hazy.' It leaves wiggle room for interpretation and sophistry and that's why reapa likes it. TS is inarguable. It's just a precise measure of how well a player converts shots into points, and there is no arguing with it. That's what I meant by 'hate math.' Something simple and straight forward that does not involve opinions or subjective analysis.

[reapaman]

The point is, its far more 'hazy.' It leaves wiggle room for interpretation and sophistry and that's why reapa likes it. TS is inarguable. It's just a precise measure of how well a player converts shots into points, and there is no arguing with it. That's what I meant by 'hate math.' Something simple and straight forward that does not involve opinions or subjective analysis.

Actually I don't like either, I just said ortg is better and the reason is simply because it takes into account more things like your ability to generate points for others (well sorta kinda) and not because its a good stat. I mean other then this thread when have I ever used ortg?

To elaborate on why I don't like TS% ... One reason is because it basically says a 2 point shot is a 2 point shot no matter how you get it. While theoretically true, TS% in essense says that a jump shot from 16 feet is just as easy to make as a dunk which isn't true. Al for example is shooting 42% from 16 - 23 on 5.6 attempts per game and 44% from 3-9 on 3.5 per game which are both one of the best in the league yet TS% doesn't care (his 10-15 feet number are not that bad either). Al offensely is way more benefitual to his team offensively than Tyson chandler but TS% does not care. At least with ortg other things are being taken into consideration to level the playing field somewhat but that stat has huge inexcusable flaws too.

And that brings me to 3 pointers. It gives a weight to amplify 3 pointers but not to other 2 point shots. Jefferson gets penalized for not shooting 3 pointers (well not actually penalized) but Anderson (his TS% must've went up since the last time I looked, my bad) doesn't get penalized for not using any. Post moves are invaluable to a team and many teams need that low post threat but TS% is saying its as valuble and easy to make as a tyson chandler lob dunk. How is that fair? Are 3 pointers really that much more valuable and harder to shoot than a back down post move from 3 -5 feet out with 2 or 3 defenders draped over you? I don't think so but whoever made TS% did because they didn't give a weight to anything outside 3 feet that wasn't a 3 point shot. Al gets 3.5 attempts from 3-9 feet where he excutes some of his post moves like the back down turn around jumper and anderson only gets .9 attempts from that range, yet TS% doesn't care. Saying Al doesn't do much else (Al gets to the line a little more than Anderson btw) but 2 point shots is misleading. He jump shoots, has a variety of post moves, among other things including the ocassional dunk. He does alot of stuff shooting wise but TS% doesn't care. The free throw calculation is fine but its kinda confusing when some people use .44 as the coefficent and others like hollinger uses .50.

Ok enough of my rant but to sum it up I really don't care for TS% or Ortg. I was just stating if your going to do a stat like that, ortg is better than TS%. Mabey we can come up with a better stat that can get closer (not exactly but closer than the current ones) to the truth but TS% or ORTG and especially per doesn't do it.

All information I used is from hoopdata as usual in case you wanted to know http://hoopdata.com/