TS% vs Shots Taken vs MPG

[What Would Jesus Do?]

You might expect those thing to be strongly correlated. Good scorers would have the green light and be on the floor more.

That's only the offensive side, of course, so a good defender might get PT that's otherwise not warranted by his scoring.

So, anyway, I'm going to put those numbers in a table and see where the chips fall. Posting this as I do it on the theory that some here might find it interesting, while others will disparage and nitpick because, you know . . . humans.

Listed in order of field goals attempted. No particular reason.

Player	TS%	Shots Attemped	MPG
Caleb	49.1	497	35.7
RJ	56.7	409	34.9
Armando	58.7	334	30.3
Pete	54.7	232	30.1
Leaky	50.8	209	32.1
Puff	49.5	93	16.0
D'Marco	52.3	36	10.2
Seth	49.4	44	9.8
Nickel	53.0	40	6.0
Washington	49.9	35	5.7
Dontrez	48.0	19	5.9
McKoy	61.8	13	5.4
Shaver	51.3	1	2.0

 

[TPFKAPFS]

The only nit I must pick is...I have no idea what TS% is!

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

The only nit I must pick is...I have no idea what TS% is!

As I understand it, it's the same as eFG% but adjusted to factor in foul shooting. Total scoring, not just field goals.

So, for example, Caleb's eFG% is 45..2 but his good FT shooting and multiple trips to the line bump his TS% up to 49.1.

If there's more to it, I hope someone will jump in.

The stat I can never get straight is ORtg.

 

[imajericho]

I think I said this during the season but if Caleb Love was 5% better in TS then we would have had like 3 losses on the year, if not less.

 

[ChiShankCity]

The only nit I must pick is...I have no idea what TS% is!

It factors in everything, so it adds free throws as opposed to effective field goal percentage, which only accounts for field goal attempts.

The median TS% last year in college basketball was about 54%. The worst TS% was 46.8%.

If Caleb Love were a team last year, his TS% would rank 354th in the country.

True Shooting Percentage Calculator

www.breakthroughbasketball.com

 

[TPFKAPFS]

So why is this necessary or what is it supposed to tell me? And what is the difference between FG% and eFG%? I don't even want to know what ORtg means!

I think we make up metrics to fit our agendas and most of them are just distractions. I can look at a guy and tell if he is an efficient or volume shooter. I can watch form to see if he is better than the numbers indicate; watch video to see if he is more successful in certain spots or a catch & shoot or a pull up guy! Team FG%, FT % and situational % are very useful, the individual not so much. Individual & Team turnover, assist, rebounding, fouls, etc are very useful.

 

[DSouthr]

So why is this necessary or what is it supposed to tell me? And what is the difference between FG% and eFG%? I don't even want to know what ORtg means!

I think we make up metrics to fit our agendas and most of them are just distractions. I can look at a guy and tell if he is an efficient or volume shooter. I can watch form to see if he is better than the numbers indicate; watch video to see if he is more successful in certain spots or a catch & shoot or a pull up guy! Team FG%, FT % and situational % are very useful, the individual not so much. Individual & Team turnover, assist, rebounding, fouls, etc are very useful.

SCORE for TP! Recall the ole phrase, numbers don't lie but liars always use numbers! But yeah, that is the thing that stats and metrics do a poor job of reflecting (not that they are useless) the intangible items you can only see with your eyes and knowledge of the game. So much of the game depends on the time and situation and numbers really struggle to reflect that, it is the human element that numbers don't know how to handle.

 

[CanuckChuck]

So why is this necessary or what is it supposed to tell me? And what is the difference between FG% and eFG%? I don't even want to know what ORtg means!

I think we make up metrics to fit our agendas and most of them are just distractions. I can look at a guy and tell if he is an efficient or volume shooter. I can watch form to see if he is better than the numbers indicate; watch video to see if he is more successful in certain spots or a catch & shoot or a pull up guy! Team FG%, FT % and situational % are very useful, the individual not so much. Individual & Team turnover, assist, rebounding, fouls, etc are very useful.

It's eFG with FT's factored in.

So some objective measures are good (Team FG%, FT % and situational %) but others are unnecessary?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I think I said this during the season but if Caleb Love was 5% better in TS then we would have had like 3 losses on the year, if not less.

And we wouldn't be bitching so much about RJ at point. It really helps to have people you can pass to who can get the job done. As the 2022 season showed - with both Manek and a better-shooting Caleb as options.

Not to mention how much good shooters on the perimeter helps Armando's game. Compare his 2022 vs 2023 numbers. Not only did he shoot a bit better in 2022 - his eFG% was 57.0 in 2022 vs 55.4 last season - but, significantly, he took a lot more shots - 429 shots in 2022 vs 334 in 2023.

Think about that for a minute. Manek was killing it from deep and Caleb was much better in 2022, yet Armando took nearly a hundred more shots! Same Armando, same RJ at point.

If that doesn't prove the value of outside shooting, I don't know what does.

Sure there are other variables, like injuries. But nothing that accounts for that huge a difference.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

what is the difference between FG% and eFG%?

As I understand it, eFG% gives proper weighting to 2pt and 3pt shots.

So, for example, Caleb's FG% this season was 37.8%. His 3pt% was 29.9% while his 2pt% was 45.5%.

Since Caleb took roughly the same number of shots from 2pt range and 3pt range, his eFG% is basically the average of the 2 separate percentages.

But that ignores the fact that made 3pt shots count 50% more. The eFG% corrects for that, yielding 45.2%.

As discussed, TS% builds on that by factoring in FT shooting.

 

[ChiShankCity]

So why is this necessary or what is it supposed to tell me? And what is the difference between FG% and eFG%? I don't even want to know what ORtg means!

I think we make up metrics to fit our agendas and most of them are just distractions. I can look at a guy and tell if he is an efficient or volume shooter. I can watch form to see if he is better than the numbers indicate; watch video to see if he is more successful in certain spots or a catch & shoot or a pull up guy! Team FG%, FT % and situational % are very useful, the individual not so much. Individual & Team turnover, assist, rebounding, fouls, etc are very useful.

Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it isn't necessary. Effective field goal percentage simply adds 50% for a 3PT shot because it's worth 50% more than a 2. TS% and eFG% are pretty valuable statistics because they factor in the value of a 3 over a 2 and the value of getting to the free throw line.

"If he is better than his numbers" is extremely subjective. The shots that are tracked and counted towards your statistics are the only ones that matter.

Also, catch-and-shoot and pull up jumpers are tracked and most programs use those from statistical tracking companies. I guess the majority of college basketball programs and all NBA organizations are dumb, because they can't "look at a guy and tell if he is an efficient or volume shooter." I guess they're dumb because data factors into their opinions.

 

[TPFKAPFS]

Yes, I actually believe what I said. eFG% is unnecessary. (for fans unless they are interested in the stats themselves) TS% is unnecessary and both are misleading. Team % actually tells a story that is useful for a coach and a fan, while the individual advanced metrics obscure the human factors that really drive the numbers! Team stats can actually reveal the impact of the human factors, especially when there are players in common across years! If a person gets more open looks because the Big demands attention OR his PG can create Or his counterpart across the court hits shots too, his eFG% will rise. If he takes contested or hurried shots because he doesn't have these factors it will sink-but looking at it tells you nothing about the shooter (maybe decision making, maybe not) while revealing a lot about the team! A coach can use individual FG% along with film to discern the human factors to inform a player, but when fans use them they can mislead! (or can be bent to support our agendas)

BTW: beware of the tendency to generalize. Many things I don't understand are necessary just like many I do aren't. BUT I know beyond the shadow of a doubt that those advanced metrics add absolutely nothing to the understanding or enjoyment of college bball for me and thus they are unnecessary! AND everybody is better at shorter shots (except freaks like Steph) so to me it is more telling to know the % of makes vs takes and not the weighting for an individual. I would use the separate 3 pt % to determine who should be allowed to take them. I evaluate shooters based on what I see and the team based on the advanced metrics. Also the dumb comes in when ever anyone tries to take an example to the extreme! It also usually reflects on the intellectually lazy and not the person described! Of course it is subjective because the subject is a person!

 

[ChiShankCity]

Yes, I actually believe what I said. eFG% is unnecessary. (especially since it is exactly the same as FG%) TS% is unnecessary and both are misleading. Team % actually tell a story that is useful for a coach and a fan, while the individual advanced metrics obscure the human factors that really drive the numbers! Team stats can actually reveal the impact of the human factors, especially when there are players in common across years! If a person gets more open looks because the Big demands attention OR his PG can create Or his counterpart across the court hits shots too, his eFG% will rise. If he takes contested or hurried shots because he doesn't have these factors it will sink-but looking at it tells you nothing about the shooter (maybe decision making, maybe not) while revealing a lot about the team! A coach can use individual FG% along with film to discern the human factors to inform a player, but when fans use them they can mislead! (or can be bent to support our agendas)

eFG% is not unnecessary, lol.

And no one is saying team FG% is not valuable. But that alone tells you so much. Other stats tell you more. Other advanced stats tell you a lot more because they factor in tempo and pace (Offensive efficiency).

And no kidding, if you have better players, you will have a higher eFG%. That isn't breaking news and no one is denying that.

This stuff matters. In the Austin Rivers game, we dominated the box score. He won FG% 49-43. We made, attempted, and shot a better percentage from FT's. We were +7 on the glass. We were +6 on assists. We had fewer turnovers. We fouled less. But Duke made 14 3's and won the game.

There's a lot of data that indicates that 3PT defense should be quantified by 3PT%. It should be based more on the attempts you allow.

https://kenpom.com/blog/3point-defense-should-not-be-defined-by-opponents-3p/

This FG% vs more advanced stat reminds me of baseball's debate. Some baseball fans will be loyal to the batting average. While batting average is a useful statistic, there are other statistics that tell a better story about an offense.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it isn't necessary. Effective field goal percentage simply adds 50% for a 3PT shot because it's worth 50% more than a 2. TS% and eFG% are pretty valuable statistics because they factor in the value of a 3 over a 2 and the value of getting to the free throw line.

"If he is better than his numbers" is extremely subjective. The shots that are tracked and counted towards your statistics are the only ones that matter.

Also, catch-and-shoot and pull up jumpers are tracked and most programs use those from statistical tracking companies. I guess the majority of college basketball programs and all NBA organizations are dumb, because they can't "look at a guy and tell if he is an efficient or volume shooter." I guess they're dumb because data factors into their opinions.

Yep. You obviously can't tell everything from numbers, but you can tell a lot.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

eFG% is not unnecessary, lol.

And no one is saying team FG% is not valuable. But that alone tells you so much. Other stats tell you more. Other advanced stats tell you a lot more because they factor in tempo and pace (Offensive efficiency).

And no kidding, if you have better players, you will have a higher eFG%. That isn't breaking news and no one is denying that.

This stuff matters. In the Austin Rivers game, we dominated the box score. He won FG% 49-43. We made, attempted, and shot a better percentage from FT's. We were +7 on the glass. We were +6 on assists. We had fewer turnovers. We fouled less. But Duke made 14 3's and won the game.

There's a lot of data that indicates that 3PT defense should be quantified by 3PT%. It should be based more on the attempts you allow.

https://kenpom.com/blog/3point-defense-should-not-be-defined-by-opponents-3p/

This FG% vs more advanced stat reminds me of baseball's debate. Some baseball fans will be loyal to the batting average. While batting average is a useful statistic, there are other statistics that tell a better story about an offense.

Saying these stats are meaningless or unnecessary is sort of like saying

"The only thing that matters is the final score."

OR

"The only think that distinguishes a good season from bad is winning a national championship."

And yes, I've seen statements like those a number of times in this forum. And sure, I like to win and snag championships as much as the next guy. But I enjoy so much more about the game.

Some of us get into the actual games. What a concept. And we have fun scrutinizing the players and the strategies. Some of us like thinking about how the team could get better, how it will play next year, who's coming. And so on. And some of us even enjoy the stats.

Nobody is required to be interested in stats. But they aren't meaningless.

On the flip side, a whole lot of us "know what we see" - and yet somehow we can disagree so aggressively that clearly a lot of us who "know what we see" really don't. Stats can help bring some objectivity to those disputes.

So anyyway, for @TPFKAPFS - who is one of my favorite posters here - you don't need to get into stats. But at least you now have a better idea of what some of them tell us. So, who knows, maybe you'll start to like them better. But if they don't work for you, it's no biggie.

 

[tarheel0910]

@Steat, you mentioned in another thread that you might do a contest during the summer. I've got a couple of ideas. How about contest #1 being the number of stats threads @What Would Jesus Do? start and #2 can be the number of people who complain about stats. Put me down for 58 threads and 5,491 people.

 

[TPFKAPFS]

As I understand it, eFG% gives proper weighting to 2pt and 3pt shots.

So, for example, Caleb's FG% this season was 37.8%. His 3pt% was 29.9% while his 2pt% was 45.5%.

Since Caleb took roughly the same number of shots from 2pt range and 3pt range, his eFG% is basically the average of the 2 separate percentages.

But that ignores the fact that made 3pt shots count 50% more. The eFG% corrects for that, yielding 45.2%.

As discussed, TS% builds on that by factoring in FT shooting.

eFG% is not unnecessary, lol.

And no one is saying team FG% is not valuable. But that alone tells you so much. Other stats tell you more. Other advanced stats tell you a lot more because they factor in tempo and pace (Offensive efficiency).

And no kidding, if you have better players, you will have a higher eFG%. That isn't breaking news and no one is denying that.

This stuff matters. In the Austin Rivers game, we dominated the box score. He won FG% 49-43. We made, attempted, and shot a better percentage from FT's. We were +7 on the glass. We were +6 on assists. We had fewer turnovers. We fouled less. But Duke made 14 3's and won the game.

There's a lot of data that indicates that 3PT defense should be quantified by 3PT%. It should be based more on the attempts you allow.

https://kenpom.com/blog/3point-defense-should-not-be-defined-by-opponents-3p/

This FG% vs more advanced stat reminds me of baseball's debate. Some baseball fans will be loyal to the batting average. While batting average is a useful statistic, there are other statistics that tell a better story about an offense.

SDung: I think you just proved what I was saying! All of the stats you quoted told a story of the team's success! None of them told me as a coach whether to trust any individuals on my team.

WW: 1st thing-my first post was supposed to be a joke, lol. I would never even think to imply these threads shouldn't be on here or that some peeps don't love them! I said unnecessary and not meaningless! They mean a great deal to some but are unnecessary for me. Baseball is a great analogy because the whole Moneyball era was driven by advanced metrics. The metrics drove the building of a team and worked for the suits; the individual stats and motivating the humans + making sure they fit together on the field won the Champs! I also never said I didn't like stats; I just don't like the new breed stats that purport to tell me about players when my eyes tell me all I need to know. I'm a dinosaur in many ways, but just because something is new doesn't mean it is better OR that all need to subscribe to it!

 

[TPFKAPFS]

I'm sorry I derailed this thread!

Honestly, I read all the Stat threads even though many of the stats mystify me, lol! They do give me a basis to compare teams and players. BTW: I got A's in Advanced Stats and Calculus in college so I understand the numbers, I just don't think they mean more than the info my eyes see and the knowledge I get from really knowing a player!

I'll retreat back into my cave now!

 

[Steat]

@Steat, you mentioned in another thread that you might do a contest during the summer. I've got a couple of ideas. How about contest #1 being the number of stats threads @What Would Jesus Do? start and #2 can be the number of people who complain about stats. Put me down for 58 threads and 5,491 people.

Deal, if you agree to run that pool....

 

[imajericho]

And we wouldn't be bitching so much about RJ at point. It really helps to have people you can pass to who can get the job done. As the 2022 season showed - with both Manek and a better-shooting Caleb as options.

Not to mention how much good shooters on the perimeter helps Armando's game. Compare his 2022 vs 2023 numbers. Not only did he shoot a bit better in 2022 - his eFG% was 57.0 in 2022 vs 55.4 last season - but, significantly, he took a lot more shots - 429 shots in 2022 vs 334 in 2023.

Think about that for a minute. Manek was killing it from deep and Caleb was much better in 2022, yet Armando took nearly a hundred more shots! Same Armando, same RJ at point.

If that doesn't prove the value of outside shooting, I don't know what does.

Sure there are other variables, like injuries. But nothing that accounts for that huge a difference.

I feel like Armando played significantly more minutes to get those more shots. We played 6 tourney games, he had injuries this year, and probably more ACC tourney games.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I feel like Armando played significantly more minutes to get those more shots. We played 6 tourney games, he had injuries this year, and probably more ACC tourney games.

Excellent point. I looked at the numbers expecting that there would still be a difference but after correcting for the number of minutes played, the difference almost disappears.

In 2022 Armando took a shot every 2.87 minutes. In 2023 he took a shot every 2.90 minutes. Practically the same.

This bears some rethinking. Thanks for pointing that out.