Does the TS formula need to be modified?

jamesnamida · Post #1 » by **jamesnamida** » Sat Jan 25, 2014 1:05 am

Formula currently is:
Pts * 100 /2 (fga+.44 fta)

It favors fta too much, especially if you're a decent shooter.
The multipler .44 should be a larger number. And I'm fine with that punishing bad freethrow shooters since a vast majority of the time the other team gets the rebound, unlike a regular shot.

Example: kevin love vs harden
Kevin love: .459 fg .386 three pointer .802 ft
Harden: .449 fg. .328 there pointer .846 ft
Kevin love Shot more two pointers and three pointers than harden, with their ratio about the same.
He shoots the three far better than harden-- so youd think it would give him a ts advantage.
He Shoots only 30 less total free throws, 1.5 less fta per game, thats less than a one call difference!!!!

Harden ts: .598
Love ts: .586

You might not think .012 is not a big difference , but considering how much better kevin is at the 3 and shooting more from there, it was offset by 1.5 more ft attempts per game with harden shooting just a little bit better at the line.
The disparity would be larger if their raw % are the same but with one shooting 1.5 more fta

Imagine the ts disparity if harden had four more ftas per game than love, yea that's two extra calls all game.

Side note:
Im not a can of either players so let's not make this harden vs love, just used them as an example.
Also it helps a lot to learn the art of getting calls.

Dr Spaceman · Post #2 » by **Dr Spaceman** » Sat Jan 25, 2014 2:04 am

It's an estimate, based on the relative value of a free throw to a field goal. The formula shouldn't be changed- it's a stat, a tool that has it's uses and also situations where it shouldn't be used. It's not the formula that should change, it's the usage.

eFG% would show the drastic difference between Love and Harden here- that's why it's dangerous to just look at TS% and say one guy is "more efficient".

But good post OP, and it's always good to think about these things critically.

bbms · Post #3 » by **bbms** » Sat Jan 25, 2014 3:16 am

TS% gives you pretty much the best picture for shot selection, imo. Also, TS% punish long 2s, aka the worst-shot-in-the-game-unless-you're-Dirk-or-MJ.

Let's put it in math.

A very good FT shooter shoots over 80% from the line. Ok. 5 possessions that end in 10 FTAs. This guy nail 80% of the FTAs, then he scored 8 points on 5 possessions. 1.6 points per possessions. The most efficient shot simply isn't considered relevant in eFG%.

A good finisher at the rim hits about 60% at the rim. Ok. 5 possessions that end in 5 FGAs. The guy will nail 60% of them, thus making 1.2 ppp, but, a shot at the rim is highly likely to give you FTAs and And'1s (making you more efficient that the eFG% and the FG% would tell). A shot at the rim usually gives you 30-40% unless you are Durant, Harden, Howard, Griffin, LBJ... Skyrockets your offense per possession.

An excellent midrange shooter would give you about 45% from long twos on over 5 attempts per game, but let's imagine prime Dirk here. Prime Dirk scored at about 50% from mid range. 5 possessions wasted in long twos, 50% conversion rate, 1.0 ppp.

An excellent three point shooter average at about 40% on 4+ attempts per game. Let's imagine last season's Curry, hitting 45% from three. 5 possessions giving 5 3ptFGA, at a 45% conversion rate, gives you around 2.25 baskets on 5 possessions, thus making 6.75 points on 5 possessions, which gives you about 1.35 ppp.

This is why TS% is about shot selection. Punishes heavily those who doesn't draw fouls, because the FT IS the best shot in the game. Punish those who fell in love with jumpers, cause it takes Curry-Like 3t shooting to surpass the average shot at the rim on points per possession. Not to mention it punishes heavily those who fell in love with the mid range shot.

And is also a better measurement than eFG% because it takes account player's ability to draw fouls, and award those how takes more shots close to the rim, because they are the FTA-awarding shots.

But that's just individual performance. This is actually the point where eyeball is important. Eye-test is not about contesting stats and say the stupidity it is to say that Melo is a better scorer than Durant. Eye test is about saying: "Ok. Mid range is not an efficient shot, but from a strategical standpoint, someone has to take it. If you don't offer a threat in the mid range, your opposing paint will be crowded and protected against penetrations". And this is where I agree with the poster above. It's use must be more synergic with eye-test.

But on the other hand, you have to be conscious, like Durant is, like Dirk is, like Bird was, like Jordan was... Mid range is an strategical tool, not some sort of staff you support your scoring.

primecougar · Post #4 » by **primecougar** » Sat Jan 25, 2014 3:21 am

omg i hate the " long 2s aka the worst shot in basketball. you cant win with only 3s and layups. look at the last 10 championship teams, they all had a dominate midrange player.

2013/2012: lebron had to make his midrange shots to beat the spurs, killed the thunder with his mid range game
2011: dirk
2009/2010: kobe
2008: pierce and kg
2007: parker
2006: wade
2005: duncan/gino
2004: rip/buliups and soo on

you need one guy making midrange shots at an elite level

Keller61 · Post #5 » by **Keller61** » Sat Jan 25, 2014 4:04 am

You can use play-by-play data to get exact TS%. I think there should just be an advanced stat that tracks "true shooting attempts" rather than estimating them with the .44 coefficient.

Rapcity_11 · Post #6 » by **Rapcity_11** » Sat Jan 25, 2014 4:08 am

primecougar wrote:omg i hate the " long 2s aka the worst shot in basketball. you cant win with only 3s and layups. look at the last 10 championship teams, they all had a dominate midrange player.

2013/2012: lebron had to make his midrange shots to beat the spurs, killed the thunder with his mid range game
2011: dirk
2009/2010: kobe
2008: pierce and kg
2007: parker
2006: wade
2005: duncan/gino
2004: rip/buliups and soo on

you need one guy making midrange shots at an elite level

Calling Duncan and Ginobili dominant mid-range players is really weird.

Rapcity_11 · Post #7 » by **Rapcity_11** » Sat Jan 25, 2014 4:12 am

Keller61 wrote:You can use play-by-play data to get exact TS%. I think there should just be an advanced stat that tracks "true shooting attempts" rather than estimating them with the .44 coefficient.

This is true. TS% undervalues guys who make a disproportionate amount of single FT trips. Also I'm not sure the OP understand the point of the 0.44 coefficient.

kabstah · Post #8 » by **kabstah** » Sat Jan 25, 2014 4:30 am

primecougar wrote:omg i hate the " long 2s aka the worst shot in basketball. you cant win with only 3s and layups. look at the last 10 championship teams, they all had a dominate midrange player.

You don't know what you're talking about. Dominating with 3's and layups while sucking at mid range is exactly how Miami beat OKC in 2012. Lebron, the guy you think killed the Thunder with his mid range game, was 4-23 between 10 and 23 ft. Wade and Bosh were also hot garbage, shooting a combined 19-59 from the same distance.

KD and Westbrook were way, way, way better at hitting the long 2 (especially Durant), and they lost in 5 because OKC couldn't hit the 3 ball.

Q00 · Post #9 » by **Q00** » Sat Jan 25, 2014 4:37 am

primecougar wrote:omg i hate the " long 2s aka the worst shot in basketball. you cant win with only 3s and layups. look at the last 10 championship teams, they all had a dominate midrange player.

2013/2012: lebron had to make his midrange shots to beat the spurs, killed the thunder with his mid range game
2011: dirk
2009/2010: kobe
2008: pierce and kg
2007: parker
2006: wade
2005: duncan/gino
2004: rip/buliups and soo on

you need one guy making midrange shots at an elite level

Agree. Great midrange shooters are an asset, not detriment. There's a reason why the greats work so hard on their midrange game. Its because in the playoffs defenses are so good they take away the paint and 3s and give you the midrange shot. If you can make it consistently, that's a huge advantage.

Players today who ignore the midrange because they think its a low % shot are going about it the wrong way. Of course everyone would love to shoot nothing but layups and 3s, but in the playoffs defenses aren't going to let you do that, and then you have nothing left. if you have no midrange game. A great midrang shooter is almost as important to a halfcourt offense in the playoffs as a great low post scorer.

Q00 · Post #10 » by **Q00** » Sat Jan 25, 2014 4:50 am

kabstah wrote:
primecougar wrote:omg i hate the " long 2s aka the worst shot in basketball. you cant win with only 3s and layups. look at the last 10 championship teams, they all had a dominate midrange player.

You don't know what you're talking about. Dominating with 3's and layups while sucking at mid range is exactly how Miami beat OKC in 2012. Lebron, the guy you think killed the Thunder with his mid range game, was 4-23 between 10 and 23 ft. Wade and Bosh were also hot garbage, shooting a combined 19-59 from the same distance.

KD and Westbrook were way, way, way better at hitting the long 2 (especially Durant), and they lost in 5 because OKC couldn't hit the 3 ball.

The point is you need all 3 facets of the game. This idea that you only need layups and 3s is flat out wrong. No one said you had to be lights out from midrange, but you need guys who can make them and are a threat from that area. Whether Miami made them or not doesn't really matter because Wade and Bosh are such big threats from there, just there presence in that area affected OKCs defense. Knowing Wade/Bosh were not good 3 pt shooters, and the midrange was their strength, OKC probably focused on stopping them in that area, and that is why they shot so poorly. But in turn it opened up the 3 pt shot for the role players. OKC had the right game plan, but because Miami wasn't just 2 dimensional, they had 3 pt shooters who could make them pay for paying extra attention to Wade and Bosh in the midrange. Its the right defensive strategy. You'll live with Miamis role players beating you from 3 instead of giving Wade and Bosh open looks from their sweet spots all night. Miami's offense was just too complete to stop no matter how you gameplan against it.

On the other side, Miami probably saw that OKC weren't good enough midrange shooters to beat them from there. So they gameplanned to take away the 3. That's why OKC shot so well from midrange because they left them open, and so poorly from 3. They just weren't good enough from midrange to make Miami pay. Wade and Bosh however are good enough to beat you on all midrange shots if you let them, and that's why OKC had to honor them in that area, which opened up their 3s and the whole offense. Which is why its so important to have great midrange shooters and not just be 2 dimensional.

Why only want to be 2/3 on offense if you can be a complete offense? The more areas on the court you can make the opponent have to guard, the better.

kabstah · Post #11 » by **kabstah** » Sat Jan 25, 2014 5:17 am

Q00 wrote:The point is you need all 3 facets of the game. This idea that you only need layups and 3s is flat out wrong. No one said you had to be lights out from midrange, but you need guys who can make them and are a threat from that area. Whether Miami made them or not doesn't really matter because Wade and Bosh are such big threats from there, just there presence in that area affected OKCs defense. Knowing Wade/Bosh were not good 3 pt shooters, and the midrange was their strength, OKC probably focused on stopping them in that area, and that is why they shot so poorly. But in turn it opened up the 3 pt shot for the role players. OKC had the right game plan, but because Miami wasn't just 2 dimensional, they had 3 pt shooters who could make them pay for paying extra attention to Wade and Bosh in the midrange. Its the right defensive strategy. You'll live with Miamis role players beating you from 3 instead of giving Wade and Bosh open looks from their sweet spots all night. Miami's offense was just too complete to stop no matter how you gameplan against it.

No sane defense would ever adopt the strategy of giving up open 3's in order to guard a mid range shooter. Three-point specialists hit close to 50% in the corners and 40% elsewhere around the arc, roughly the same raw % as the best mid range shooters, and then it's simply the matter of 3 points > 2 points.

On the other side, Miami probably saw that OKC weren't good enough midrange shooters to beat them from there. So they gameplanned to take away the 3. That's why OKC shot so well from midrange because they left them open, and so poorly from 3. They just weren't good enough from midrange to make Miami pay. Wade and Bosh however are good enough to beat you on all midrange shots if you let them, and that's why OKC had to honor them in that area, which opened up their 3s and the whole offense. Which is why its so important to have great midrange shooters and not just be 2 dimensional.

So you think Kevin Durant isn't a sufficiently good mid range shooter, and Miami's gameplan was to leave him open thus leading to his stellar %'s? Seems to me you're operating under the bizarro logic of higher %'s = worse shooter.

CarMalone · Post #12 » by **CarMalone** » Sat Jan 25, 2014 5:30 am

primecougar wrote:omg i hate the " long 2s aka the worst shot in basketball. you cant win with only 3s and layups. look at the last 10 championship teams, they all had a dominate midrange player.

2013/2012: lebron had to make his midrange shots to beat the spurs, killed the thunder with his mid range game
2011: dirk
2009/2010: kobe
2008: pierce and kg
2007: parker
2006: wade
2005: duncan/gino
2004: rip/buliups and soo on

you need one guy making midrange shots at an elite level

Few people are claiming that the long 2 is worthless. There are plenty of situations where a long 2 is warranted. For example, an open long 2 is better than a contested 3. However, most people would argue that with all variables being the same, the long 2 is the least desireable shot.

Q00 · Post #13 » by **Q00** » Sat Jan 25, 2014 5:37 am

kabstah wrote:
Q00 wrote:The point is you need all 3 facets of the game. This idea that you only need layups and 3s is flat out wrong. No one said you had to be lights out from midrange, but you need guys who can make them and are a threat from that area. Whether Miami made them or not doesn't really matter because Wade and Bosh are such big threats from there, just there presence in that area affected OKCs defense. Knowing Wade/Bosh were not good 3 pt shooters, and the midrange was their strength, OKC probably focused on stopping them in that area, and that is why they shot so poorly. But in turn it opened up the 3 pt shot for the role players. OKC had the right game plan, but because Miami wasn't just 2 dimensional, they had 3 pt shooters who could make them pay for paying extra attention to Wade and Bosh in the midrange. Its the right defensive strategy. You'll live with Miamis role players beating you from 3 instead of giving Wade and Bosh open looks from their sweet spots all night. Miami's offense was just too complete to stop no matter how you gameplan against it.

No sane defense would ever adopt the strategy of giving up open 3's in order to guard a mid range shooter. Three-point specialists hit close to 50% in the corners and 40% elsewhere around the arc, roughly the same raw % as the best mid range shooters, and then it's simply the matter of 3 points > 2 points.
On the other side, Miami probably saw that OKC weren't good enough midrange shooters to beat them from there. So they gameplanned to take away the 3. That's why OKC shot so well from midrange because they left them open, and so poorly from 3. They just weren't good enough from midrange to make Miami pay. Wade and Bosh however are good enough to beat you on all midrange shots if you let them, and that's why OKC had to honor them in that area, which opened up their 3s and the whole offense. Which is why its so important to have great midrange shooters and not just be 2 dimensional.

So you think Kevin Durant isn't a sufficiently good mid range shooter, and Miami's gameplan was to leave him open thus leading to his stellar %'s? Seems to me you're operating under the bizarro logic of higher %'s = worse shooter.

No, no sane defense would leave 2 HOFers open in their sweet spots all game, just to guard Mike Miller on 3s.

Also, yes Durant is a good midrange shooter, but what other guys did they have that could beat you from there? Durant isn't going to beat you by himself on nothing but midrange shots. Wade, Bosh, and LeBron could if you don't pay attention to them. That's the difference. If you are Miami you didn't have to worry about guarding that area, and OKC had to guard the whole court.

I honestly don't know what either of their teams gameplan was, but I would be surprised if OKC's didn't prioritize stopping Wade/Bosh over Mike Miller, as that would be crazy otherwise. And seeing how OKC only had 1 capable midrange shooter, it makes sense to leave them open from there and defend the 3. You can't apply that defensive strategy to MIami though because they had too many guys that can beat you from there.

Its not a new concept that I''m making up. All championship teams have had great midrange shooters since the beginning of basketball. Do you think all the greats had good midrange games by accident? Its because they were taught how to play the right way and were developed into complete players, not just gimmicky layup and 3 guys.

Q00 · Post #14 » by **Q00** » Sat Jan 25, 2014 5:42 am

CarMalone wrote:
primecougar wrote:omg i hate the " long 2s aka the worst shot in basketball. you cant win with only 3s and layups. look at the last 10 championship teams, they all had a dominate midrange player.

2013/2012: lebron had to make his midrange shots to beat the spurs, killed the thunder with his mid range game
2011: dirk
2009/2010: kobe
2008: pierce and kg
2007: parker
2006: wade
2005: duncan/gino
2004: rip/buliups and soo on

you need one guy making midrange shots at an elite level

Few people are claiming that the long 2 is worthless. There are plenty of situations where a long 2 is warranted. For example, an open long 2 is better than a contested 3. However, most people would argue that with all variables being the same, the long 2 is the least desireable shot.

It always depends on the player though. Its not black and white. Some players strength is the long 2 and are poor finishers inside. So even though a shot in the paint is the higher % shot generally, for that player its not, the long 2 is. I think you always have to adjust your offense to your players strengths. If you have a guy who can make that shot consistently, then its to your advantage to have him shoot from there. You don't want to take all jumpshots period as a team, but for that particular player, when its his turn to shoot, if that's his best shot, then that's where he should take most of his from.

jamesnamida · Post #15 » by **jamesnamida** » Sat Jan 25, 2014 6:16 am

Rapcity_11 wrote:
Keller61 wrote:You can use play-by-play data to get exact TS%. I think there should just be an advanced stat that tracks "true shooting attempts" rather than estimating them with the .44 coefficient.

This is true. TS% undervalues guys who make a disproportionate amount of single FT trips. Also I'm not sure the OP understand the point of the 0.44 coefficient.

Isn't it a estimate to convert fta to one true possession like the fga?
Cause I think the higher the fta from the average. The less accurate the ts is.
If the ratio of fga and fta change on the same number of non weighted possessions,
The ts changes, with the higher one favoring more freethrows.
But iono why since fts end a possesion more than a fga. Especially since it doesn't take into account which freethrow is missed.

kabstah · Post #16 » by **kabstah** » Sat Jan 25, 2014 7:03 am

Q00 wrote:No, no sane defense would leave 2 HOFers open in their sweet spots all game, just to guard Mike Miller on 3s.

Bosh was literally assisted on every single jumpshot in that series. He does very little to create spot up opportunities for 3 point shooters, because Miami Bosh's mid range game is almost entirely spot up also. As for Wade, like Lebron he draws doubles on the strength of his penetration, not his mid range shooting (which has been mediocre at best since 2009).

Also, yes Durant is a good midrange shooter, but what other guys did they have that could beat you from there? Durant isn't going to beat you by himself on nothing but midrange shots. Wade, Bosh, and LeBron could if you don't pay attention to them. That's the difference. If you are Miami you didn't have to worry about guarding that area, and OKC had to guard the whole court.

I honestly don't know what either of their teams gameplan was, but I would be surprised if OKC's didn't prioritize stopping Wade/Bosh over Mike Miller, as that would be crazy otherwise. And seeing how OKC only had 1 capable midrange shooter, it makes sense to leave them open from there and defend the 3. You can't apply that defensive strategy to MIami though because they had too many guys that can beat you from there.

Miami as a team are not good at defending the 3 because they aggressively trap the ball handler with two defenders, leaving a 4 on 3 everywhere else. Even as far back as 2010-2011 and before they went small ball, their defensive philosophy was to help on any and all penetration, leaving them susceptible to kick out 3's. For you to suggest that Miami clamped down on 3's as part of their defensive strategy runs contrary to everything we know about them.

OKC's gameplan was simply do whatever's necessary to stop Lebron from kicking our ass at the rim via post ups and drives. That's what opened up the 3 point shot for Miami, it had nothing to do with Lebron's mid range game.

Its not a new concept that I''m making up. All championship teams have had great midrange shooters since the beginning of basketball. Do you think all the greats had good midrange games by accident? Its because they were taught how to play the right way and were developed into complete players, not just gimmicky layup and 3 guys.

For the majority of the NBA's history there weren't enough good 3 point shooters to make the 3 preferable to the mid range game. That's not the case any more, which is why you're seeing more and more 3's concurrent with less and less mid-long 2's.

mysticbb · Post #17 » by **mysticbb** » Sat Jan 25, 2014 10:30 am

jamesnamida wrote:Isn't it a estimate to convert fta to one true possession like the fga?

The 0.44 is based on actually counting the scoring possessions. In average one FTA is equal to 0.44 FGA.

If you want an accurate TS%, you can easily count the scoring possessions for each player via pbp. If you do that for a couple of players, you will realise that the difference between the exact TS% and the estimation via the listed formula is hardly worth doing such thing. Overall the TS% doesn't need to be modified. Better FT shooters are more efficient, if they get more often to the line. The TS% will tell you exactly what the reality in the game will tell you too.

evitcanI · Post #18 » by **evitcanI** » Sat Jan 25, 2014 1:10 pm

jamesnamida wrote:
Rapcity_11 wrote:
Keller61 wrote:You can use play-by-play data to get exact TS%. I think there should just be an advanced stat that tracks "true shooting attempts" rather than estimating them with the .44 coefficient.

This is true. TS% undervalues guys who make a disproportionate amount of single FT trips. Also I'm not sure the OP understand the point of the 0.44 coefficient.

Isn't it a estimate to convert fta to one true possession like the fga?
Cause I think the higher the fta from the average. The less accurate the ts is.
If the ratio of fga and fta change on the same number of non weighted possessions,
The ts changes, with the higher one favoring more freethrows.
But iono why since fts end a possesion more than a fga. Especially since it doesn't take into account which freethrow is missed.

You lose possession after each FGA, so 1 FGA = 1 TSA.

You usually lose possession after 2 FTA which would make each FTA = .5 TSA.

But sometimes you get 3 FTA, sometimes you get a free FTA after a FGM (and-1), sometimes you get a free FTA and retain possession (flagrant, tech, etc.). Because of those extra FTAs the average FTA is slightly less costly than .5 FGA. That's where the .44 comes from.

It doesn't matter which FTA you miss, it doesn't matter what ratio of FTA to FGA you have, or anything like that.

primecougar · Post #19 » by **primecougar** » Sat Jan 25, 2014 4:49 pm

Rapcity_11 wrote:
primecougar wrote:omg i hate the " long 2s aka the worst shot in basketball. you cant win with only 3s and layups. look at the last 10 championship teams, they all had a dominate midrange player.

2013/2012: lebron had to make his midrange shots to beat the spurs, killed the thunder with his mid range game
2011: dirk
2009/2010: kobe
2008: pierce and kg
2007: parker
2006: wade
2005: duncan/gino
2004: rip/buliups and soo on

you need one guy making midrange shots at an elite level

Calling Duncan and Ginobili dominant mid-range players is really weird.

Ginobili is a stretch but Duncan does start his post up game from around 15-17 feet as the def doesn't always let him get deep post position. Plus the spurs had tony Parker who takes a lot of midrange shots.

primecougar · Post #20 » by **primecougar** » Sat Jan 25, 2014 4:53 pm

kabstah wrote:
primecougar wrote:omg i hate the " long 2s aka the worst shot in basketball. you cant win with only 3s and layups. look at the last 10 championship teams, they all had a dominate midrange player.

You don't know what you're talking about. Dominating with 3's and layups while sucking at mid range is exactly how Miami beat OKC in 2012. Lebron, the guy you think killed the Thunder with his mid range game, was 4-23 between 10 and 23 ft. Wade and Bosh were also hot garbage, shooting a combined 19-59 from the same distance.

KD and Westbrook were way, way, way better at hitting the long 2 (especially Durant), and they lost in 5 because OKC couldn't hit the 3 ball.

Idk what the hell you watched but what I saw was that lbj was unstoppable in midrange post up area. Durant couldn't check him and okc was forced to switch harden/sefo on him.
I hate this logic. How did Miami get all those open 3 pointers?

The same wide open 3s that you got was not because okc didn't notice it. It was cuz if they didn't double lbj/wade in post, it would be an easy 2 everytime. You don't get wide open 3s if lebron or wade wasnt playing in the post.