3G4G wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:3G4G wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:gunsnewing wrote:NYKMentality wrote:gunsnewing wrote:Durant is God!
52 points is 52 points but lets not act like Durant didn't shoot 13/31 from the field. That (13/31) is far from "god like".
Godlike performance down the stretch in a game where Dallas at home played their asses off
And 21 for 21 from the FT line! I think his performance is a great example of how misguided it is to give more weight to FG% than to true shooting%.
Only if FTA were all created equal and we know in this league they aren't. I do agree you want to view a metric(s) that determines how much contribution one player has on any given possession....TS would be one of them.
But if I have a high volume 2pt shooter who shoots over 50%, slightly below league average from 3pt line at low volume and very rarely gets to the FT but shoots above league average....
Compared to a higher volume 3pt shooter who shoots a little better than league average, low volume 2pt attempts below league average, respectable representation shooting FT at a very good %.....
I still may prefer the 2pt shooter over the latter although his TS% may be lower not to mention other factors in the game under consideration.
Right; you're simply saying that the upgrade in 2 point TS% over your current roster would be larger than the any downgrade in perimeter TS% by taking player A over B. Perhaps your team is weaker from 2 point than 3 point range. When talking about roster adjustments, what matters is the change in TS% that would occur when replacing an existing with a new player. You'd still be better off looking at the TS% in the paint (which would examine your scoring efficiency in the paint - FGs and FTs) and TS% on the perimeter (FGs plus FTs) rather than FG% from those locations for both the existing and new players.
Depends on style of play for my team as to what player I take over the other. It may turn out TS% results in the determining factor but FG% could too and/or both.
Take for instance Tyson Chandler led the league in TS% last year and he actually shot a great FG% but I'm not going to take Chandler over Dwight Howard if healthy because I feel Dwight is more dynamic around the paint, is more of a force offensively, and creates more problems defensively. There are things TS% simply doesn't account for even from an offensive perspective. Even though Dwight is a brick Mason at the FT...he does get to the line far more than Tyson which is factored into the TS formula but skewed just a tad. If I'm more of a complete offensive team and get the bulk of my scoring outside the paint I may prefer Tyson over Dwight say like on a Dallas Maverick team or say on an OKC team.
I'd look at all offensive metrics along with other factors as stated in my previous post.
TS% is slightly above middle of the road metric and is more favorable for fantasy play than anything else.
It doesn't make sense to ask whether you should look at TS% or other offensive metrics. It wasn't intended to replace all offensive metrics. It was intended to replace FG%.
Player A can have a lower TS% but higher offensive win shares than B if A takes more shots than B and the marginal difference in FG and FGA between A and B is still above league average. Let's put aside assists and turnovers, which also impact offensive win shares. Let's also pretend A and B are identical in both FT and FTA just to simplify the discussion. If A shoots 8.0 for 13.0 from the field on average and B shoots 4.0 for 6.0, B will have the higher TS% but A will have a better overall impact and higher offensive win share total because the marginal difference (+4 out of +7 for A) is still well above the league average. In a real life example, player A may be a much higher volume player than player B, and perhaps assists, turnovers, FT, FTA, FG, and FGA are all higher for A. Then we will need offensive win shares to know if the marginal increase in volume between A and B is worthwhile or not.
1/19/2013 12:56 PM