James Harden TRADED to Rockets

[RollWithEm]

Originally Posted by R-Star

FG% tells you effective a scorer someone is.

I'm sorry. It does not. You're just wrong on this one. I judge effectiveness based on efficiency. FG% is a fairly poor evaluator of efficiency.

[Hyperion]

Originally Posted by R-Star

Hes shooting 47% on the year. That is a very good shooter, agreed. But for a stat to say "Oh, a lot of those are 3 pointers so lets up the numbers for him a bit" is asinine in my view.

The TS% actually helps the slasher who gets the opposing team into foul trouble more than the 3pt specialist.

[R-Star]

Originally Posted by RollWithEm

I'm sorry. It does not. You're just wrong on this one. I judge effectiveness based on efficiency. FG% is a fairly poor evaluator of efficiency.

Completely disagree. Again, if someone scores 26 points of 46% shooting but does it mainly inside the paint, and someone scores 26 points but does it at 43% shooting mainly mid range and behind the ark, you're somehow telling me the 43% shooter is more efficient?

No.

[R-Star]

Originally Posted by Hyperion

The TS% actually helps the slasher who gets the opposing team into foul trouble more than the 3pt specialist.

Dependent. Guys like DeRozan don't get to the line much, so it doesn't help him all that much. Guys who get star calls like Harden and Wade? Sure.

[Bogg]

Originally Posted by R-Star

Completely disagree. Again, if someone scores 26 points of 46% shooting but does it mainly inside the paint, and someone scores 26 points but does it at 43% shooting mainly mid range and behind the ark, you're somehow telling me the 43% shooter is more efficient?

No.

Well, it depends on how many possessions they use. In the simplest of terms, a guy can score 26 points on 43% shooting from three using 20.1 shots. It takes 28.3 attempts to score 26 points shooting layups at a 46% clip.

[RollWithEm]

Originally Posted by R-Star

Completely disagree. Again, if someone scores 26 points of 46% shooting but does it mainly inside the paint, and someone scores 26 points but does it at 43% shooting mainly mid range and behind the ark, you're somehow telling me the 43% shooter is more efficient?

No.

Do you even know the formula? Your argument indicates that you do not.

Point Scored / (2FGA + .88FTA)

Translation: You are more efficient if you score more but take less TOTAL shots. Meaning, if you get to the line a lot but don't make your free throws (i.e. Dwight Howard), you are not as efficient. Also meaning, if you shoot 5-for-10 and score 10 points but I shoot 5-for-10 and score 15 points, I was more efficient... unless I went to the line 15 times and shot 0-for-15. Make sense?

Your example of two players who score the same number of points but shoot a different percentage completely leaves free throws out of the equation. That's really what separates an efficiency rating from a percentage.

[Hyperion]

Originally Posted by RollWithEm

Do you even know the formula? Your argument indicates that you do not.

Point Scored / (2FGA + .88FTA)

Translation: You are more efficient if you score more but take less TOTAL shots. Meaning, if you get to the line a lot but don't make your free throws (i.e. Dwight Howard), you are not as efficient. Also meaning, if you shoot 5-for-10 and score 10 points but I shoot 5-for-10 and score 15 points, I was more efficient... unless I went to the line 15 times and shot 0-for-15. Make sense?

Your example of two players who score the same number of points but shoot a different percentage completely leaves free throws out of the equation. That's really what separates an efficiency rating from a percentage.

It's actually

Points/(FGA + 0.44*FTA)

Why isn't a FTA worth 0.5 of a FGA? It's worth less so that the % gets inflated.

[RollWithEm]

Originally Posted by Hyperion

It's actually

Points/(FGA + 0.44*FTA)

Why isn't a FTA worth 0.5 of a FGA? It's worth less so that the % gets inflated.

Problem 1: The formula I posted is correct. Source 1, Source 2, Source 3

Problem 2: Making the multiplier less makes overall scoring slightly more valuable because it's in the denominator.

[Hyperion]

Originally Posted by RollWithEm

Problem 1: The formula I posted is correct. Source 1, Source 2, Source 3

Problem 2: Making the multiplier less makes overall scoring slightly more valuable because it's in the denominator.

You are correct I point one. I misread the formula on basketball-reference.

However, the average person in the NBA shoots >70% from the line. 0.88 of 10 FTAs is 8.8. If a player makes 7/10 FTs, then he is rewarded with 7/8.8 or 80% TS%.

[TucsonClip]

I just dont understand, for the life of me, how someone can argue that FG% is more relevant than TS%.

You can argue PER all you want, I have no problem with that. However, TS% and other advanced stats like reb%, ast%, ect are pure mathematics that make perfect sense. Again, you are arguing TS% for arguments sake to support your opinions.

[RollWithEm]

Originally Posted by Hyperion

0.88 of 10 FTAs is 8.8. If a player makes 7/10 FTs, then he is rewarded with 7/8.8 or 80% TS%.

You are correct. This is why calling True Shooting Percentage a "percentage" is a bit of a misnomer. If you shot 10-for-10 from the line, your true shooting percentage would be over 100. It's more of a relative assessment of shooting efficiency than it is a percentage. That doesn't devalue it, though. It's merely a question of perception.

[Diable]

Originally Posted by TucsonClip

I just dont understand, for the life of me, how someone can argue that FG% is more relevant than TS%.

You can argue PER all you want, I have no problem with that. However, TS% and other advanced stats like reb%, ast%, ect are pure mathematics that make perfect sense. Again, you are arguing TS% for arguments sake to support your opinions.

It's very simply because TS% is inconveniently in favor of James Harden.

[hobojoe]

R-Star, you're also harping on this 43% shooting figure. We're still just halfway through the season, the 43% figure was just under 47% a week ago before this shooting slump. It'll happen over the course of the season as the number one option. He's been reasonably efficient, obviously not as efficient as the 3rd option sixth man as you said would happen, but he's not exactly Iversoning it out there every night.

[Jamel Irief]

Originally Posted by Diable

It's very simply because TS% is inconveniently in favor of James Harden.

Are there stats that show that harden is better than Kobe?


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App

[R-Star]

Originally Posted by Diable

It's very simply because TS% is inconveniently in favor of James Harden.

Hey look, its Diable popping into the thread to say "Yea good point! Me too!" then disappearing.


Talk about how Harden was better than Kobe last year. Or how Harden is such an amazing passer and defender.....